2015 (9) TMI 762 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that - In so far as the allegation of non compliance with the conditional order is concerned, the appellant appears to have complied with the conditional order twice over, but in a wrong account and after the time granted by the Tribunal. The appellant complied with the conditional order first on 24.7.2012 by making a debit entry in the CENVAT book. This compliance was, irrespective of whether it was proper compliance or not, made within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. The second compliance was on 28.2.2014 by way of cash, which was certainly beyond the period of time. Therefore, the appellant has complicated the matters for themselves, but demonstrated their bona fides by first making a debit entry in the CENVAT book and next making a cash deposit. In essence, the appellant has suffered to the extent of 100% of the duty levied. - orders of the Tribunal are set aside. The appellant shall be taken to have complied with the conditional order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution and non-compliance with a conditional order.
2. Dismissal of an application for restoration of an appeal and for amendment of cause title.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant imported duty-free goods based on an advance license but failed to produce an export obligation discharge certificate, leading to a demand notice and confirmation of the duty amount by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order in Original, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Tribunal granted stay and waiver subject to a deposit condition, which the appellant failed to comply with. Despite debiting the required amount in their CENVAT book, the appellant did not inform the Tribunal or appear for the compliance date, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's subsequent attempts for restoration were also unsuccessful due to non-appearance. However, the appellant eventually made a cash deposit and filed applications for restoration and amendment of cause title, citing an amalgamation with another company. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, prompting the appellant to appeal.

Issue 2: The appellant demonstrated efforts to comply with the conditional order by making a debit entry in the CENVAT book within the stipulated time, albeit in the wrong account. A subsequent cash deposit was made beyond the granted period. The Court acknowledged the appellant's genuine efforts and the merger with another company, emphasizing that the appellant had already suffered the full duty amount. Considering these factors, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's orders, directed compliance with the conditional order, permitted the cause title amendment, and instructed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits within six months.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the appeals, recognizing the appellant's attempts at compliance and the company's merger, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's orders and providing directions for the appeal's timely disposal.