2017 (6) TMI 160 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - non-compliance of stay order - Held that - the stay order has been put to test before the Hon ble High Court as well as the Apex Court by the applicant. The orders have been upheld and there is no modification of the order of the Tribunal except for granting extension of time, which also expired many years back. We note that in such situation, there is absolutely no legal basis for this Tribunal to entertain the applicant and recall the order of dismissal of the appeals - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance of stay order.
2. Admissibility of Misc. Application for restoration of appeals.
3. Legal basis for the Tribunal to entertain the applicant and recall the order of dismissal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two applications filed by the same applicant seeking restoration of their appeals dismissed by the Tribunal for non-compliance of a stay order directing the deposit of 50% of the adjudicated demand. The applicant had a series of legal proceedings, including a writ petition before the High Court and a subsequent application for modification of the stay order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its Final Order, observed that the appellant's actions demonstrated dilatory tactics causing prejudice to the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Supreme Court later dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by the applicant, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

2. The applicants filed a Misc. Application for restoration, contending that they had paid the tax liability with interest, citing financial difficulties and requesting a review based on the merits of their case. However, the Revenue strongly opposed the admissibility of the Misc. Application, highlighting the multiple legal challenges made by the applicant to the Tribunal's stay order, which were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no legal basis to entertain the applicant's request for restoration, given the previous legal proceedings and the dismissal of Civil Appeals by the Supreme Court.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and legal developments in the case, concluded that there was no dispute regarding the chronology of events and the challenges made by the applicant to the Tribunal's stay order. The High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld the orders, with no modifications except for granting extensions of time, which had expired. The Tribunal reiterated its commitment to act upon the directions of the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the Civil Appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal found no legal grounds to reconsider the order of dismissal of the appeals and dismissed the applications for restoration.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the legal proceedings, the applicant's challenges to the Tribunal's orders, and the subsequent dismissals by higher courts. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of legal basis to entertain the applicant's request for restoration, ultimately upholding the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the stay order.