2015 (2) TMI 1286 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order - contention of learned counsel is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the issue on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit - Held that - The appellant s Bank Guarantee to the extent of ₹ 32.62 crores already stands en-cashed by Revenue during pendency of the proceedings - The direction to the appellant to further deposit an amount of ₹ 40 lakhs is not appropriate. Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits without insisting any pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay order
2. Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals)
3. En-cashing of Bank Guarantee
4. Decision on merits without pre-deposit

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay order:
The judgment addresses the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with a stay order that required the appellant to deposit a specific amount as a condition for hearing their appeal. The Tribunal found this action inappropriate, especially considering the appellant's Bank Guarantee had already been en-cashed by the Revenue during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the issue was prima facie decided in favor of the appellant in a previous case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.

Issue 2 - Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal referred to its previous order directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits, emphasizing that the Commissioner should have proceeded with deciding the matter without requiring any pre-deposit. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was based on the belief that the appellant's grievance regarding non-supply of documents and cross-examination needed to be addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the decision-making process.

Issue 3 - En-cashing of Bank Guarantee:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Revenue had already en-cashed the appellant's Bank Guarantee amounting to &8377; 32.62 crores while the proceedings were ongoing. This fact was considered in the context of the inappropriate demand for an additional deposit of &8377; 40 lakhs by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and remand the matter for a fresh decision.

Issue 4 - Decision on merits without pre-deposit:
The Tribunal concluded that the direction for the appellant to deposit an additional amount of &8377; 40 lakhs was unwarranted, especially when the issue was seemingly decided in the appellant's favor in a previous case. Therefore, the Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on its merits without insisting on any pre-deposit, ensuring that the appellant's concerns regarding document supply and cross-examination were appropriately addressed during the process. The stay petition and appeals were disposed of accordingly.