2016 (3) TMI 391 - HC - Customs

Validity of Tribunal s order - Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of stay order and directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 1 crore - Held that - as the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant, for ₹ 1,63,03,455/-, on 14.7.2014 and for ₹ 17,78,249/-, on 19.7.2014, had been encashed by the Department, therefore, the Tribunal s order is set aside. - Decided in favour of the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the appeal.
2. Compliance with pre-deposit directions and subsequent financial hardship.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal judgments.
4. Power of the Tribunal to modify earlier interim orders based on changed circumstances.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The appellant raised questions regarding the tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal, citing a change in circumstances due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction. The tribunal's decision was challenged based on the argument that it should have considered the changed circumstances and financial hardship faced by the appellant. The appellant questioned the tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment without considering the approval of the final order by the High Court. Additionally, the appellant argued that the tribunal should have considered judgments from the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts empowering the tribunal to modify interim orders in case of changed circumstances.

Compliance with Pre-deposit Directions and Financial Hardship:
The appellant highlighted the encashment of the bank guarantees furnished, leading to financial strain. The appellant requested the court to set aside the tribunal's order and direct the restoration of the matter for further consideration based on the changed circumstances and financial difficulties faced by the appellant.

Interpretation of Relevant Legal Judgments:
The appellant contested the tribunal's decision by questioning the interpretation of legal judgments, particularly the application of a Supreme Court judgment and the distinction between approval of interim orders and final orders by the High Court. The appellant argued that the tribunal should have considered these aspects before refusing to restore the appeal.

Power of the Tribunal to Modify Interim Orders:
The appellant referred to judgments from the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, emphasizing the tribunal's authority to modify earlier interim orders in response to changed circumstances. The appellant argued that the tribunal should have exercised this power considering the financial hardships faced by the appellant due to the encashment of bank guarantees.

In the final judgment, the court set aside the tribunal's order and directed the restoration of the matter for further consideration, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution. The decision was made after the second respondent did not contest the submissions made by the appellant's counsel. No costs were awarded, and the connected matter was closed.