2015 (9) TMI 398 - HC - Customs

Restoration of Appeal In support of prayer for restoration of appeal, Tribunal refused to oblige appellants Held that - no fault with approach of Tribunal inasmuch as pre-deposit order was made in year 2007 That was not complied with, appeals came to be dismissed Tribunal, therefore, could not be asked to recall its order on application for restoration preferred as late as in 2013 In said circumstances, Tribunal rightly refused to restore appeals and that too on ground that original conditions imposed be waived Failure to comply with condition would result in automatic dismissal of appeals, and thereafter, no restoration application for extension of time shall be entertained Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order.
2. Appellants seeking restoration of appeals before the High Court.
3. Disagreement on waiving conditions of pre-deposit order.
4. Proposal to restore appeals subject to compliance with specified conditions.

Analysis:

1. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals in 2007 due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order issued on 3rd January 2007. Despite subsequent attempts for restoration in 2013, the Tribunal had rightly refused to oblige the appellants, citing the delay in compliance with the original order as a key factor in their decision.

2. During the hearing, both counsels, Mr. Thacker for the appellants and Mr. Mishra for the Revenue, presented their arguments. The High Court carefully reviewed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and found no fault with their decision to dismiss the appeals based on non-compliance with the pre-deposit order from 2007.

3. The High Court expressed reluctance to waive the conditions of the pre-deposit order, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders. However, the appellants' counsel assured the court that the appellants would fulfill the conditions imposed in the 2007 order within six weeks, prompting a discussion on the implications of allowing such a course of action.

4. Despite acknowledging the concerns raised by Mr. Mishra regarding the potential leniency towards negligence in court proceedings, the High Court decided, based on the specific circumstances of the case, to offer the appellants a chance to restore their appeals. This opportunity was contingent upon the appellants complying with the 2007 order within the specified timeframe and paying costs to the Commissioner of Customs. Failure to meet these conditions would lead to automatic dismissal of the appeals, with no further restoration applications or extensions entertained thereafter.