TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal dated 03.09.2013, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demanded in the impugned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of that order. The Order dated 25.11.2013 dismissing the appeals was passed by the Tribunal on account of failure on the part of the appellant to make predeposit as ordered earlier by the Tribunal. Against the order dated 25.11.2013 of the Tribunal, the appellant went before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, who vide their Order dated 4th September, 2015 in G.A.No.2854 of 2015 granted an additional period of eight weeks from that date for making predeposit. The amount of predeposit was also reduced to Rs. 35.00 lakhs and the Hon'ble High Court directed that if the predeposit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 25.11.2013 dismissing the appeals has to be considered as revived. Complying with the pre-deposit, after the given period, the Tribunal is not empowered to restore such appeals. In particular, he relied on the Three Member Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Nhava Sheva reported in 2016 (343) ELT 270 (Tri.Mumbai). Finally, he submitted that the power of restoration of the Tribunal has been extinguished since the order of the Tribunal has got merged with the orders passed by the higher judicial forums. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The present applications have been filed for restoration of these two appeals, which were dismissed by the Tribunal vide Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nother angle, if the Tribunal accepts the amount deposited by the appellant after the extended period, as granted by the Hon'ble High Court, and restores the appeal, it would be viewed by Hon'ble High Court and the same can be called in question by Hon'ble High Court, as contempt of the direction given by them. In my view, the Superior Court has after dismissing the appeal in interest of justice, extended the period for pre-deposit ordered by Tribunal, having not been complied, by the appellant, the Tribunal has no powers to extend the period and accept the amount deposited as substantial compliance of the stay order. It was for the appellant to approach the Hon'ble High Court and get appropriate directions, having not done so the appellant....