2017 (9) TMI 994 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed non-compliance of the pre-deposit order - Held that - the appellant could not comply with the predeposit order due to financial hardship as well as the demise of her husband who was earlier looking after the business - taking into consideration the delay, the appellant has to be put on terms - the appeals shall be restored on condition that the appellant deposits ₹ 40,000/- with respect to Appeal No. ST/40400/2013 and ₹ 10,000/- with respect to Appeal No. ST/40401/2013 as costs to the respondent on or before 14th August 2017 - appeal restored - application for restoration of appeal allowed subject to fulfillment of condition.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-compliance of predeposit leading to dismissal of appeals
- Financial hardship faced by the appellant
- Direction from the Hon'ble High Court to consider restoration applications

Analysis:
The appellant filed applications seeking restoration of appeals dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance of predeposit. The appellant's counsel argued that the business was initially managed by the appellant's late husband, causing confusion after his demise. Subsequently, the appellant's son took over the business, and the appellant deposited a significant amount towards the demand. Mention was made of financial difficulties preventing full compliance. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to review the restoration applications and halt recovery proceedings. The appellant's plea for restoration was based on these grounds.

The respondent, represented by the learned AR, opposed the restoration applications, highlighting that the Tribunal had set a predeposit requirement of ?9 lakhs, with a deadline for compliance. The appeals were dismissed after the appellant failed to meet this obligation despite ample opportunities. The respondent argued that dismissal was justified due to non-compliance, and restoration was unwarranted.

Upon considering both sides' arguments and the High Court's order, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's financial challenges and the husband's passing affecting business operations. Despite recognizing these difficulties, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to impose conditions for restoration. The Tribunal ruled that the appeals could be restored if the appellant paid ?40,000 for one appeal and ?10,000 for the other as costs to the respondent by a specified date. Compliance with these terms would lead to the restoration of the appeals for immediate hearing without further delays.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both miscellaneous applications by setting forth the conditions for restoration, emphasizing the need for partial payment as costs to the respondent to proceed with the appeals. The decision aimed to balance the appellant's circumstances with the necessity of fulfilling certain obligations to reinstate the appeals for adjudication.