TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on noticees namely Quality Apparels Exports Pvt Ltd, Mr. C.D.N. Singh, Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Randhir Singh and Mrs. Parimala Singh. The Tribunal directed pre-deposit to be made by each of the five noticees vide three separate Orders all dated 3.1.2007. The details of the amounts so directed to be deposited as a condition for hearing the appeals on merit by waiving the balance pre-deposit and for staying the recovery under the impugned Orders-in-original are as follows- S.No Parties Appeal No Particulars of Order in Original Particulars of Order directing pre-deposit Amount directed to be pre-deposited I Quality Apparels Exports Pvt. Ltd C/784/06 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010 passed in F. No. S/3-Misc-02, 03 & 04 /2006 RC/ACC attached certain movable and immovable properties owned by the applicant Mrs. Parimala Singh or her proprietorship firm M/s Quality Exporters. 2.1 Without making or even agreeing to make any pre-deposit and after six years of such dismissal of appeals, applications were filed by these noticees for restoration of their appeals only by relying on attachment of the properties and financial hardship. Vide a common Order dated 23.7.2013, the Tribunal had dismissed these applications for restoration of appeals dismissed vide three Orders all dated 10.5.2007. 2.2 In the meanwhile, vide an Order dated 29.6.2012, the Competent Authority under SAFEMA released certain movab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s earlier directed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 3.1.2007. 2.6 Subsequently, during pendency of the application, the amounts of pre-deposit to be paid by the five noticees, total Rs. 9,00,000/-, directed vide Order dated 3.1.2007 in respect of the said Order-in-Original dated 3.4.2006 was deposited under cover of letter dated 17.7.2015. Vide letter dated 28.7.2015, the department while acknowledging receipt of the amount cautioned the applicants that the amounts paid shall be considered and deposited as recovery of Arrears instead of pre-deposit if no further order issued by the Tribunal is produced within 10 days. The applicants requested to await the hearing before the Tribunal. 2.7 Under cover of a letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2013 was limited to the challenge contained in the Custom Appeal no. 55 of 2013, which was in respect of appeals concerning only one of the three Orders-in-Original. Moreover, whereas pre-deposit has been made by Mrs. ParimalaSingh in relation to the remaining two Orders-in-Original, but the Company has made pre-deposit only in respect of one of the two remaining Orders-in-Original. In such situation no leniency is warranted in the case. He opposed the application for permitting lifting of attachment of the properties belonging to the applicant Mrs. Parimala Singh even if she is willing to make pre-deposit for the company. 4. We have carefully considered the records before us, the peculiar facts of the case and the submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atic dismissal of Appeals, and thereafter, no restoration application or applications for extension of time shall be entertained." 4.3 Thus, in short the Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice and in the peculiar facts of the case was pleased to direct restoration of appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 29.3.2006 but directed compliance of the Order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the Tribunal and payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) within six weeks. The said Order dated 11.8.2014 has been accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, upon making the payments as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in compliance with the Order dated 3.1.2007 and cost of Rs. 50,000/- the appeals are restored and the stay of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder-in-Original dated 31.3.2006, but the same is yet to be paid. 4.6 It is seen that even where the pre-deposit amount earlier directed is now paid by the applicants, the same has been deposited after a mammoth delay, which cannot be ignored. 4.7 However, considering the Order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in a challenge to the said common order dated 23.7.2013 against the same applicants, we are inclined to restore those remaining appeals for hearing them on merits in respect of which the amounts directed vide earlier Order dated 3.1.2007 are already paid, but subject to payment of total cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one week from receipt of this Order. Upon reporting compliance of the same....