2014 (6) TMI 950 - AT - Customs

Direction of Predeposit and report of compliance - By Tribunal s Stay Order dated 12.6.2012 and High Court judgement dated 21.4.2014, the appellant was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. One crore within eight weeks from the date of its order - Held that - as there is no compliance report on the record, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of stay order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the Tribunal as well as the Hon ble High Court s order dated 21.4.2014. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order and stay order

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved the issue of non-compliance with a pre-deposit order and stay order. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and provide a bank guarantee. However, the appellant failed to comply with the orders, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Pre-Deposit Order:
The appellant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. One crore within eight weeks and provide a bank guarantee for an additional sum. The High Court upheld this order, emphasizing that the undertaking given by the appellant's counsel was binding on the appellant. The court rejected the appellant's challenge to modify the pre-deposit conditions, highlighting that the counsel's undertaking was more than that of the party and thus legally binding.

Non-Compliance and Dismissal:
Despite being given additional time to comply with the pre-deposit order, the appellant failed to do so. The tribunal noted the absence of the appellant and any compliance report, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with both the tribunal's stay order and the High Court's directive. The dismissal was based on the appellant's failure to adhere to the specified pre-deposit requirements within the given timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders and stay orders issued by the tribunal and the High Court. Failure to adhere to these directives can result in the dismissal of the appeal, as demonstrated in this case where the appellant's non-compliance led to the unfavorable outcome of the appeal being dismissed.