Tribunal's Jurisdiction Upheld for Appeals Rejected on Non-Deposit; Emphasizes Substantial Justice

The court held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals rejected for non-deposit of penalty or duty demanded. Emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, it set aside the order rejecting restoration application and the appeal dismissal order. The appeal was directed to be restored and heard promptly, considering subsequent actions by the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal requires to be interfered with.
2. Whether the order dismissing the appeal is vitiated.
3. What final orders are required to be passed in the petitions.

Summary:

Issue 1:
The appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of the penalty amount. The question was whether restoring such an appeal would amount to reviewing the earlier order. The court observed that such an order of dismissal cannot be regarded as a final order u/s 129B(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals rejected by the Collector (Appeals) for non-deposit of the penalty amount or duty demanded. The absence of a specific prohibition against restoring an appeal dismissed for non-deposit implies that the Tribunal has the power to recall its earlier order if the ends of justice require it. The court emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, citing the Supreme Court's observation in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The majority view that the Tribunal was powerless to restore such an appeal due to the absence of an express provision was rejected. The order rejecting the application for restoration was set aside.

Issue 2:
The appeal was dismissed on 20-12-1985 because neither the appellant nor his Advocate was present, and there was no intimation of the deposit. The court noted that the appeal was a composite appeal for setting aside both the penalty and the order of confiscation of the vessel. The Tribunal did not appreciate this aspect when dismissing the appeal. The dismissal of the entire composite appeal on the ground of non-deposit of the penalty amount was deemed inappropriate. The order dismissing the appeal was vitiated on this ground and was set aside.

Issue 3:
Subsequent circumstances since the dismissal of the appeal were considered. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1 lac out of the Rs. 5 lacs penalty, paid the entire redemption fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-, and executed a guarantee bond for the remaining penalty amount. These subsequent actions were significant and could not be ignored. The court allowed both Special Civil Applications, set aside the order rejecting the restoration application, and the order dismissing the appeal. The appeal was directed to be restored and heard expeditiously on merits, preferably by 31-5-1988. No order as to costs was made.

---