2013 (1) TMI 333 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Delay in complying with the pre-deposit - Assessee is a charitable institution running a charitable cancer hospital - Held that - It would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to condone the delay in depositing the amount of pre-deposit and restore the appeal without any further deposit. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of directing appellant to deposit additional amount for restoring appeal dismissed by CESTAT.
2. Delay in complying with pre-deposit order by the appellant.
3. Consideration of appellant being a charitable institution in the decision-making process.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the justification of CESTAT's direction to the appellant to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 40 lakhs for restoring the appeal that was dismissed earlier. The appellant, a charitable institution operating a cancer hospital, had initially filed an appeal against a duty demand of Rs. 78 lakhs. Despite being directed to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs within a specified time, the appellant failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the appellant deposited Rs. 35 lakhs in instalments and sought restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal then ordered the appellant to deposit a further Rs. 40 lakhs for restoration, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision.

2. The second issue highlighted the delay on the appellant's part in adhering to the pre-deposit order issued by the Tribunal back in 2003. Despite the significant delay from 2003 to 2010, during which the appellant deposited Rs. 35 lakhs in total, the High Court considered the nature of the appellant as a charitable institution running a cancer hospital. The Court acknowledged the delay but deemed it just and fair, given the charitable nature of the institution, to condone the delay in depositing the pre-deposit amount and restore the appeal without any further deposit. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order of the CESTAT directing the additional deposit and reinstated the appeal for further proceedings.

3. The final issue centered on the Court's consideration of the appellant's status as a charitable institution running a cancer hospital. Despite the delay and non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, the Court found it appropriate, just, and in the interest of justice to overlook the delay and allow the appeal to be restored without requiring any further deposit. By taking into account the charitable activities and purpose of the appellant institution, the Court exercised its discretion to set aside the CESTAT's order and restore the appeal for a fresh adjudication on its merits.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of additional deposit requirement, delay in compliance, and the appellant's charitable status, ultimately leading to the restoration of the appeal without imposing further financial obligations on the charitable institution.