2022 (1) TMI 1455 - AT - Customs

CESTAT allows restoration of appeal after condoning delay, directs registry to restore appeal to original number

M/s Royal Industries Ltd Versus C.C. Ludhiana

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the application for restoration of appeal and condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. The applicant had ... Application for restoration of appeal along with an application of condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal - HELD THAT:- It is found that there is no challenge of the stay order dated 04.06.2012 by the applicant, the only challenge is of the order of dismissal of the appeal. The delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal is condoned and it is held that as the applicant has complied with the condition of pre deposit vide stay order 04.06.2012, the Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its Original number. As this appeal pertains to the year 2010, the registry is directed to list the appeal for final disposal on 06.01.2022. Issues:Application for restoration of appeal and condonation of delay.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the applicant's appeal dismissal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, subsequent challenges in the High Court, and the Tribunal's authority to restore the appeal. The applicant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order, leading to appeal dismissal in 2014. The High Court dismissed the appeal based on limitation without discussing merits, causing the appeal to be dismissed. The applicant later made the required deposit and sought restoration of the appeal, citing relevant legal precedents like the Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah case and S.B. Packaging Ltd case. The applicant argued that the High Court's decision was not binding due to lack of merit discussion. On the contrary, the Authorized Representative relied on the Lindt Exports case to argue that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction post High Court's decision.The Tribunal considered the CBEC circular and legal precedents to determine its jurisdiction in restoring the appeal. Referring to the Lindt Exports case, the Tribunal noted that once the High Court upholds the Tribunal's order, it merges with the High Court's decision, rendering the Tribunal functus officio. However, the Tribunal analyzed various legal cases, including Bhagyalaxmi Processors Industries and Handloom, where restoration of appeals was allowed based on special circumstances and compliance with pre-deposit conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory right of appeal and directed restoration of the applicant's appeal, considering compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The judgment highlighted that the appeal was being restored solely based on the dismissal order, with no challenge to the stay order, and directed the appeal to be listed for final disposal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the restoration of the appeal, condoning the delay in filing the application, and directed the Registry to list the appeal for final disposal. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with pre-deposit conditions and statutory appeal rights, emphasizing special circumstances where restoration can be granted despite High Court decisions. The decision showcases a nuanced approach balancing legal precedents and specific case circumstances to ensure fairness and access to justice.