2014 (8) TMI 125 - AT - Customs

Restoration and/ or recalling and/ or modifying and / or varying of the Tribunal s Order - non-compliance with the direction of predeposit - Bar of limitation - Held that - both the Applicants have been represented though a common Advocate and made a common plea that they have already deposited an amount of ₹ 7,71,153/- and made a fair offer to deposit ₹ 22.00 lakhs. Consequently, the Applicants were directed to pre-deposit the said amount. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the present Applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Kedia, has not been directed along with the Appellant-Company, M/s Computech International to deposit the offered amount - present miscellaneous application is nothing, but seeking rectification of the order of this Bench dated 26.09.2012. The time limit for such rectification is six moths from the date of communication of this order as prescribed under Section 129B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, the Applicant had filed the miscellaneous application after around 15 months from the date of the order, hence, it is also barred by limitation - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration and modification of Tribunal's Order
2. Barred by limitation under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Responsibility of depositing amount by the Director
4. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance

Analysis:

1. The application sought restoration, modification, or recalling of the Tribunal's Order dated 26.09.2012. The appellant, M/s Computech International, failed to deposit the directed amount leading to dismissal of the appeal. The advocate argued that the dismissal was unfair as there was no specific direction to the Director for depositing the amount. Reference was made to a judgment to support the claim.

2. The Revenue contended that the application was seeking rectification of the order, filed after the limitation period of six months as per Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decisions cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable as the situation differed. The offer made by the applicants to deposit the amount was highlighted, indicating joint responsibility.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the order directing both applicants to pre-deposit a specific amount. It was noted that the Director was equally responsible for the deposit as per the common plea made through their advocate. The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was considered justified, and the arguments of the appellant's advocate were rejected. The Tribunal found no merit in the arguments and agreed with the Revenue's stance on the matter.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the present miscellaneous application was essentially seeking rectification of the order dated 26.09.2012, which was time-barred under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The delay in filing the application was significant, leading to its dismissal as devoid of merit and barred by limitation. The dismissal of the miscellaneous application was upheld, and the appeal remained dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.