2026 (9) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary deposits as well as through attachment of bank accounts of the assessee, entire pre-deposit requirement imposed by the Tribunal stood satisfied. The appellant, thereupon, approached the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal, which was already dismissed for nonfulfilling such requirement. The Tribunal committed an error in rejecting such an application." 3. These Appeals are admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law proposed by the assessee arising out of the common Judgment and Order dated 8th July, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the CESTAT'), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad rejecting the Appeals filed by the appellant-assessee for not depositing the amount of Rs. 10.7 Lakhs and also rejecting the application for restoring the Appeal after the amount was deposited : "(A) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the Restoration Application of the Appellant when the requisite pre deposit amount under a stay order, even after dismissal of an appeal, is ultimately stand recovered by the Department through attachment proceeding and the remaining amount was paid by the Appellant? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We reject the oral prayer made by the learned Counsel for extending the time. 2. Appeals are dismissed for noncompliance." 4.3. The appellant thereafter, preferred an application for restoration of the Appeals, by making following contentions : "2.3 On account of financial hardships, the Applicant could not deposit the entire tax amount within the prescribed period and only Rs.1 lakh was deposited in this regard. Accordingly the Hon'ble CESTAT vide its order dated 22.9.14 was pleased reject the request for granting extension to make pre-deposit and was further pleased to dismiss the appeals for noncompliance. The Hon'ble Bench was however pleased to verbally instruct the Applicant to approach for restoration of appeals upon making compliance. 2.4 The Revenue authorities since then not only attached the savings bank account of the Applicant being HDFC A/c No. 0251100089858 at RING ROAD - SURAT BRANCH, SURAT and was further pleased to withdraw the entire amount of Rs. 8,58,253.50 towards the dues, without any notice to the Applicant. 2.5 As such against total service tax pre-deposit of Rs. 10,07,224/- apart from Rs. 1 lakh alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice. It was therefore pointed out that once the entire service tax liability having been recovered by the Department, the Tribunal ought to have restored the Appeals, so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to make submissions on merits. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (1) Rajkamal Textile Printery - A Partnership Firm and 1 v. Union of India and 2 reported in 2016 (1) TMI 341 - Gujarat High Court; (2) Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah v. Union of India reported in 2014 (9) TMI 244 - Supreme Court of India; (3) Messrs. Priya Dyers v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2013 (7) TMI.533 - Gujarat High Court; (4) Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Pankaj Jaju reported in 2014 (1) TMI 1471 - Bombay High Court; (5) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (8) TMI 110 - Supreme Court of India; (6) Master Recording Co. v. CCE, Chennai/Cochin reported in 2000 (4) TMI 99 - CEGAT, Chennai; (7) TN. Mulani v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2010 (8) TMI 249 - CESTAT, Mumbai; (8) M/s Innovative Placement and Management Service v. Commissioners of Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seen that the requirement of pre-deposit was satisfied after a long delay. Division of this Court, likewise, in Priya Dyers v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2014 (305) ELT 504 observed that, for want of fulfilling the requirement of pre-deposit, the assessee's right of statutory appeal would get destroyed and the decision adverse to him would get confirmed without decision on merits. It was observed that the Court should take a relaxed view of belated compliance of requirement of pre-deposit provided there is any explanation for the delay. Similar view is expressed in Ramji Board & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman reported in 2014 (306) ELT 190. 8. In the result, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2015 is set aside. Both the appeals of the petitioners are restored to file and may be heard on merits. The total amount with Department would be retained by way of pre-deposit and would be governed by the ultimate outcome of the appeals by the Tribunal. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service permitted." 9. Similarly, in case of Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah (Supra), the Appeals were restored after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hedged in by the requirement to make pre-deposit as directed by the appellate authority, as being a condition for hearing of the appeal on merits. However, that condition cannot be used by the appellate authority for the purposes of denying an appellant the right of adjudication which is otherwise statutorily granted. In a given case, even if no pre-deposit is made, the appeal may not be heard, but having dismissed the appeal for noncompliance of pre-deposit does not permit the appellate authority to refuse to restore the appeal upon compliance being shown." 6. In the case of Hussein Haji Harun v. Union of India 1995(77) ELT 803 (Guj.) the Division Bench observed that when the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit the appellate authority would have power to consider the restoration of appeal. Mere absence of a specific provision permitting such restoration would not be a bar. 7. Keeping in mind the above decisions and considering the fact that the appellants were all throughout pursuing the remedy before the higher forum seeking further waiver of pre-deposit, as also considering the fact that the Special Leave Petition was dismisse....
TaxTMI