2016 (4) TMI 239 - HC - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal for non compliance of order for making pre-deposit - Held that - the original order directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit was passed on 12.12.2014. The time for compliance was fixed as six weeks. The appellant ought to have either complied with the conditional order or filed an application for extension of time or at least filed an appeal against the said order. Neither within the time stipulated by the Tribunal nor after the time fixed, the appellant filed any appeal. As a consequence, the order dismissing the appeal came to be passed long after on 30.6.2015. Once a consequential order is passed, the appellant would have no cause of action as against the original order. Consequently, the order cannot be challenged in the absence of compliance with the original order. Hence, the appeals cannot be entertained. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Appeals arising from order for pre-deposit and consequential dismissal for non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit by the Tribunal, with a deadline of six weeks. However, the appellant failed to comply with the order, seek an extension, or file an appeal against it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional order.

2. The appellant filed two appeals - one against the pre-deposit order and another against the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, a petition for condonation of delay was filed, which was allowed by the Court.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the case was similar to a decision by the Mumbai Tribunal where total waiver was granted to others but not to the appellant, alleging discrimination. The counsel contended that the impugned orders should be set aside due to the appellant's strong case on merits based on another Mumbai Tribunal decision.

4. The Court noted that the original order for pre-deposit was issued on 12.12.2014, with a deadline of six weeks for compliance. The appellant failed to take any action within the stipulated time or even after, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on 30.6.2015. The Court emphasized that once a consequential order is passed due to non-compliance, the original order cannot be challenged without adhering to the conditions set forth.

5. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeals and the associated CMPs, without imposing any costs. The appellant was advised to seek relief they are entitled to under the law by approaching the Tribunal again.