2015 (10) TMI 2126 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery - Appellant showed willingness to comply with the condition with submission of demand draft - Tribunal found the application hopelessly time barred - Whether Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal despite of the fact that thee is no time limit for restoration of appeal? - Held That - Tribunal could have rendered substantial justice by giving an opportunity to Appellant and appeal could have been restored - Tribunal shall restore and revive the appeal after encashing the DD and if submission of costs quantified at ₹ 25,000/- done within two weeks - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Customs appeal challenging the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing a restoration application in an appeal. The appellant's failure to comply with the condition of pre-deposit leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the restoration application as time-barred. The substantial questions of law raised regarding the justification of the Tribunal's actions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a customs appeal challenging the dismissal of a restoration application by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. The appellant, citing financial hardship, sought restoration of the appeal by showing willingness to comply with the imposed condition. However, the Tribunal deemed the restoration application as time-barred, considering previous unsuccessful attempts at modification and legal recourse through a writ petition.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, identified substantial questions of law necessitating determination. The Court questioned the Tribunal's justification in dismissing the restoration application without considering the appellant's deposit compliance and the absence of a statutory time limit for restoration. The Court opined that the Tribunal could have rendered substantial justice by allowing the restoration, considering the appellant's deposit of the required amount to the Commissioner of Customs. Consequently, the Court proposed restoring the appeal with conditions, including the encashment of the deposited amount by the Department and the appellant paying a specified cost to the respondent.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the restoration of the appeal with specified conditions. The appellant's compliance with the payment of costs within a stipulated period would lead to the revival of the appeal for a hearing on merits. The Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the appeal's underlying controversy, focusing solely on procedural and compliance aspects in the restoration process.