2014 (2) TMI 47 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that - on the earlier occasion, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable. During the course of hearing before this Tribunal, the interim order was placed and it was taken as a final order, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed under the impression that the same was filed against the interim order. However, as has been pointed out by the ld. Advocate that the appeal is filed against the final order dismissing their appeal by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground on non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs issued under interim order No. 161/ST/Kol/2011 dated 21.12.2011. In these circumstances, the order dismissing their appeal by this Tribunal on 27.08.2012 as not maintainable, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed by Tribunal

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the issue at hand was the restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant had filed an application seeking restoration of their appeal, which had been dismissed as non-maintainable by the Tribunal. The appeal was initially dismissed due to a mistake where the Tribunal referred to the wrong order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had failed to comply with the direction to deposit Rs.3.00 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. However, it was later clarified that the appeal was actually filed against the final order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and not against the interim order as mistakenly assumed by the Tribunal. As a result, the Tribunal recalled the order dismissing the appeal and restored it to its original number, allowing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of clarity in understanding the grounds on which an appeal is filed and the need for precise referencing of orders to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to the dismissal of appeals. It also underscores the significance of compliance with directions issued by authorities to avoid adverse consequences such as appeal dismissal. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order and restore the appeal emphasizes the principle of ensuring that parties are not disadvantaged due to procedural errors or misinterpretations. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural intricacies involved in legal matters and the necessity for accuracy in presenting and addressing issues before the Tribunal to secure a fair and just outcome.