TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which date the appellant had not made the pre-deposit and as a consequence, this Tribunal, in view of the non-compliance dismissed the appeals vide order dated 17.7.2014. 2. The Counsel for the applicant, Shri V.S. Sejpal, submits that the appellant was required to make a pre-deposit for a total sum of Rs. 16.5 lakhs as directed by this Tribunal. But the same could not be made due to financial difficulty and the petitioner, who is a Chartered Accountant in practice, was unable to practice his profession during period July, 2010 to 9.9.2013 due to suspension of his certificate of practice by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI). A case of professional misconduct was investigated by ICAI. The ICAI vide its order dated 9.9.2013 lifted the suspension. It is further stated that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana (Punjab) and have to regularly travel to Delhi and Mumbai with respect to the pending proceedings. In these circumstances, he could not carry out his profession resulting into very meagre income. The applicant also annexed copy of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment year 2010-11 to 2013-14, wherein the income is approximately Rs. 3 lakhs per annum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without considering the fact that the appellant had deposited the requisite amount in compliance of the pre-deposit order? (b) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal of the appellant despite the fact the statute does not lay down any time limit for restoration of appeal? The Hon'ble High Court observed that Tribunal should have rendered substantial justice by giving an opportunity to the appellant as the appellant had furnished a DD for the pre-deposit to the Commissioner of Customs. By imposing suitable conditions, the appeal should have been restored to its file for disposal on merits in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court had already made a pre-deposit, the appeal was directed to be restored subject to the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost. 2.3 The appellant further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Priya Dyers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2014 (305) ELT 504 (Guj), wherein the facts before the Court were that this Tribunal had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion Bench of High Court has observed that when the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit, the appellate authority has power to consider the restoration of appeal. Mere absence of a specific provision permitting such restoration would not be a bar. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court had restored the appeal. Thus, the learned Counsel urges vehemently for restoration of the appeals. 3. The learned AR vehemently argued that the doctrine of merger would apply. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, vide its order in appeal preferred by the applicant had extended the time for making pre-deposit within which the applicant had failed to make the deposit, resulting into dismissal of the appeal by Tribunal. Restoration of the appeal by the Tribunal would amount to extension of time granted by the Hon'ble High Court. The learned AR further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pernod Ricardo India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad - 2010 (256) ELT 161 (SC), wherein a remand order of the Tribunal passed in 2003 confirmed to error committed in determination on assessable value. Tribunal proceeded on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected. Even in a case where special leave application is rejected, the Order of the High Court does not merge in the Order of this Court, as is the case while exercising the appellate power. Similarly when Special Leave Petition is entertained against any final or interlocutory order this Court does not convert itself in a Court of appeal. It was said in the case of Gian Chand v . Kunjbeharilal [1977 (3) SCC 317] by Chandrachud, J. (as he was then): "With regard to the first submission it may be pointed out that an application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment or an order cannot be equated with the ordinary remedy of appeal, as of right, under any provisions of law. It is an extraordinary right conferred under the Constitution, within the discretion of this Court, and such an application for special leave does not come within the contemplation of appeal pending before the Court under Section 13A(a)." 12. It is a basic principle of the administration of justice that like cases should be decided alike. It is a very sound rule and practice otherwise on same question of law or same set of facts different persons approaching a Court can get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording a separate order. 7. I have seen the findings of Ld. Brother at para 4 on page 8. There is no need to repeat the facts. The issue which merits consideration is whether the Tribunal can allow restoration of the appeal when the time limit for making pre-deposit was specified by the High Court in its Order dt. 17.4.2014 and there has been violation of this Order. According to me, the question is not whether the litigation including that before the Hon'ble High Court was on merits. The point is that the High Court has granted time up to 12.6.2014 to make the pre-deposit. But the appellant made the pre-deposit 6 and ½ months later, that is, on 29.1.2015. 8. I have seen the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat decision in the case of Priya Dyers(supra) in this case the High Court referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the Lindt Exports (supra) which held that the Tribunal would be rendered functus officio upon the High Court dismissing the appeal and, therefore, any application for restoration before the Tribunal would not be maintainable. But the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court gave a different finding. With due respect I may state that the Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aos but would also amount to judicial indiscipline. This is the clear understanding from the judgment in the case of Lindt Exports wherein the High Court held that "Doctrine of merger, therefore, shall clearly apply and once the order of the Tribunal has attained finality and had been merged in the order of this Court, the Tribunal had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications preferred for restoration of appeals." 8.1 Reliance is also placed on the CESTAT Order in the case of Shimnit Kiwalite Industries Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Mumbai 2010 (262) ELT 577 holding that "Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court stipulated a period for deposit of an amount by the appellant they ought to have complied with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Where the appellant made the deposit belatedly, it was open to them to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court for condonation of the delay. Neither this Tribunal nor, in our view even the Hon'ble High Court can condone the delay." 8.2 It is also noted in this case that the High Court order was passed as Customs Appeal and not in Writ Petition. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ....