TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2012, the applicant was asked to make a pre deposit of Rs. 3.3 crore, the said order was not complied by the applicant and on 13.10.2014 the appeal of the applicant was dismissed by this Tribunal for non compliance of the stay order in terms of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana along with an application for condonation of delay as the appeal filed before the Hon'ble High Court was with a delay, the Hon'ble High Court without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant on limitation only, consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant made a deposit of Rs. 4 crore in compliance t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this Tribunal has merged with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, therefore, this Tribunal has seized the power to entertained the application for restoration of appeal. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Considered the submissions, we have gone through the circular issued by the CBEC dated 11.12.2002, thus for better appreciation the same is accepted here below: "Restoration of appeal by CESTAT- No jurisdiction once appeal rejected and confirmed by high court. The Supreme Court Ben comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar on 06.09.2013 dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 1110-1112 of 2013 filed by Lindt Exports against the judgment and Order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Jai Bharat Steel Co. the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal of their appeal on account of predeposit by this Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same is not in the case. In this case against the order of dismissal of appeal by this Tribunal, the appellant made pre-deposit and came for restoration of appeal as directed by the BIFR. We further find that in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Processors Industries- 2015 (319) E.L.T. A248 (Guj) observed as under: 6. We are conscious that previously the petitioners were given opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.50 crores by way of predeposit to entertain the appeals and enjoy stay. It is equally true that previously the petitioners did no avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it clear that in the present case, looking to the special facts, as also looking to the sizable amount involved and the offer of the petitioners of depositing considerable sum of money, we are inclined to reopen the issue. Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice several orders of different Courts as well as the Apex Court where even after considerable period of time, opportunity to proceed in appeal on merits was granted. These orders however, were essentially on different facts. Nevertheless, in special facts of this case we are on the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to deposit entire amount of pre-deposit upon which their appeals can be heard on merits. 9. Further, we note that the issue has aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. Consequently, the order of 19.08.2013 of CESTAT in Appeal No. C/388/2006-CU (DB) is hereby set aside. The appeal is directed to be restored to the file of the Tribunal which shall dispose of the same on merits and after hearing the parties. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 10. We further take note of the fact that in the case of Kisaan Gramodgyog Sansthan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: 9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if we direct the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" as ....