High Court Revives Appeal Despite 9-Day Delay in Pre-Deposit, Orders CESTAT Reconsideration with Conditions.

The High Court set aside the CESTAT's order dismissing the writ petitioner's restoration application due to delayed pre-deposit compliance. Despite a 9-day delay, the High Court acknowledged eventual compliance and restored the appeal for CESTAT's reconsideration. The petitioner must deposit INR 2 lakhs within two weeks, with no coercive actions by respondent no.2 pending CESTAT's further orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The writ petitioner's appeal restoration application dismissed by CESTAT u/s pre-deposit non-compliance.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Compliance with Pre-Deposit Directions
The writ petitioner approached the High Court aggrieved by the CESTAT's order dismissing its application for restoration of the statutory appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. The High Court had earlier directed the writ petitioner to fulfill the pre-deposit within 12 weeks. However, on the subsequent CESTAT hearing, the writ petitioner failed to inform about the deposit made, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The CESTAT was later moved for restoration, claiming compliance with the directions, although the delay in pre-deposit was not disclosed. Despite the inaccurate stand taken, the High Court found that the pre-deposit condition had eventually been met, albeit with a delay of 9 days. Considering the larger interest of justice, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the CESTAT's order rejecting the restoration application.

Issue 2: Restoration of Appeal
In light of the writ petitioner's compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, the High Court ordered the restoration of the appeal on the Board of the CESTAT for further consideration on merits and in accordance with the law. The High Court directed the writ petitioner to deposit costs of INR 2 lakhs within two weeks for the appeal to be fully restored. Additionally, the High Court clarified that no coercive measures need to be taken by respondent no.2, pending further orders from the CESTAT.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance with legal directions and the court's discretion in restoring appeals for the interest of justice.

---