2017 (4) TMI 693 - HC - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - condonation of delay - the petitioner was not able to make the pre-deposit within the time stipulated by the Tribunal and there was one day s delay in depositing such amount - Held that - there does not appear to be any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to delay payment of the pre-deposit. On account of some server problem the amount, though arranged for could not be deposited within the time granted by the Tribunal and there as a delay of two days in making the pre-deposit - the delay of two days in making the pre-deposit in the circumstances, cannot in any manner be said to be so considerable so as to warrant dismissal of the appeals. Delay in filing present petition - Held that - the second petitioner, Mr. Gautam Shantilal Shah, who was managing the affairs of the company, was hospitalised and was undergoing medical treatment during the said period - no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, more so, having regard to the fact that the amount directed by the Tribunal to pre-deposit had ultimately been deposited within a day from the expiry of the extended period of one day granted by the Tribunal, the court is of the view that the petitions deserve to be allowed. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order by the Tribunal
2. Delay in making pre-deposit leading to dismissal of appeals
3. Consideration of delay in filing present petitions

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with pre-deposit order by the Tribunal
The petitions involved a situation where the petitioners were required to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount within a stipulated time frame as directed by the Tribunal. The petitioners faced challenges in making the pre-deposit due to technical difficulties with the server of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Despite efforts to comply, the petitioners encountered issues with depositing the required amount by the specified deadline. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for failure to report compliance, leading to the petitioners filing the present petitions challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Delay in making pre-deposit leading to dismissal of appeals
The petitioners argued that they were ready to comply with the pre-deposit directions but faced a one-day delay due to technical problems with the server. The respondents highlighted the delay in filing the present petitions, emphasizing the considerable delay of over one and a half years from the date of the impugned order by the Tribunal. However, the petitioners eventually deposited the required sum of money, albeit two days late from the initial deadline. The court observed that the delay of two days in making the pre-deposit, considering the circumstances and efforts made by the petitioners, was not significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the appeals.

Issue 3: Consideration of delay in filing present petitions
The court considered the reasons provided by the petitioners for the delay in filing the present petitions, including the hospitalization of the director managing the company during the relevant period. The court noted that allowing the appeals to be restored would not cause prejudice to either party, especially since the pre-deposit amount had been deposited within a day of the extended deadline granted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal, and restored the appeals to be heard on merits.

In conclusion, the court's decision favored the petitioners, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay in making the pre-deposit and the subsequent filing of the present petitions. The court found that the delay in compliance and filing was reasonable under the circumstances, leading to the restoration of the appeals for further proceedings.