2012 (12) TMI 50 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of approximately 155 days in filing of the appeals - Held that - The allegation made by the applicants is that Rajesh Manocha was also responsible for the failure to deposit Rs. 3,64,386/-, as this fact was not brought to the notice of the management. Subsequently, Rajesh Manocha left the services of the applicant JMD Oils Pvt. Ltd. and a new manager was appointed. After appointment of the new manager, the aforesaid order dated 25-3-2011 came to the knowledge and notice of the persons concerned and the management. Steps were taken and present appeals have been filed. - Delay condoned subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- Non-compliance of the Stay Order - applicant had failed to deposit held that - Keeping in view the aforesaid position we answer the question of law mentioned above in affirmative and in favour of the appellant-assessee and the appeal is allowed. - Appeal restored before tribaunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance of pre-deposit order.
3. Challenge to the dismissal of appeals.
4. Substantial question of law regarding the dismissal of appeals without considering previous deposits.
5. Allegations of lack of notice and insufficient time given to the appellants.
6. Decision on the appeals and payment of consolidated costs.

Analysis:

1. The applicants filed appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order dated 17-3-2009. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of a Stay Order dated 28-2-2011 due to a failure to deposit a balance amount. The applicants claimed that their previous legal representative was responsible for the failure to deposit the required amount. After a new manager was appointed, the appeals were filed. The court allowed the applications subject to the payment of a consolidated cost within four weeks.

2. The appeals were filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 25-3-2011 passed by the Tribunal. The order was challenged on the grounds that the appellants had already deposited a significant amount but were still required to deposit a balance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order.

3. The substantial question of law framed was whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeals without considering that the appellants had already made a substantial deposit and only a balance amount was due. The appellants had challenged the original order and had offered to deposit the entire customs duty subject to certain conditions.

4. The Tribunal's order dated 25-3-2011 did not take into account the previous deposit made by the appellants. The failure to consider this crucial fact led to the denial of the appellants' right to appeal. The lack of notice and insufficient time given to the appellants were also highlighted as issues in the dismissal of the appeals.

5. The appellants eventually deposited the required balance amount after a new manager took charge and the lapse in communication was rectified. The court ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and directing the parties to appear before the Assistant Registrar for further proceedings.

6. In conclusion, the court addressed the delay issues, the dismissal of appeals, and the substantial question of law raised by the appellants. The decision favored the appellants due to the errors in the Tribunal's handling of the case, leading to the allowance of the appeals and further proceedings before the Assistant Registrar.