2018 (11) TMI 911 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - appeals were originally dismissed for failure to make pre-deposit as ordered earlier by the Tribunal - Held that - The dismissal order of the Tribunal was carried by the appellants before the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta and further before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Neither of the higher judicial forum interfered with the order of the pre-deposit of the Tribunal, but granted further time for making pre-deposit which was also reduced to ₹ 35.00 lac. Finally, the Hon ble Supreme Court extended the period for making such pre-deposit by a further period of four weeks from the date of their order i.e. 10.04.2017. The said period was also lapsed before the appellant finally made such pre-deposit before approaching the Tribunal with the present Miscellaneous Applications. The Revenue has strongly objected to such restoration after delayed compliance of the order for making pre-deposit - the issue settled in the case of RAKESH KUMAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , NHAVA SHEVA 2015 (10) TMI 2611 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where by majority order the Tribunal held that the Tribunal cannot accept the amount deposited by the appellant after the extended period granted by the Hon ble High Court for restoring the appeal. The appeals cannot be restored.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of appeals dismissed for failure to make pre-deposit as ordered by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellants filed Miscellaneous Applications for restoration of appeals dismissed by the Tribunal due to failure to make pre-deposit as directed earlier. The Tribunal's order dated 25.11.2013 was based on non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellants approached the Calcutta High Court and later the Supreme Court, which extended the time for pre-deposit to &8377; 35 lakhs. The Supreme Court granted an additional four weeks for pre-deposit, which the appellants eventually complied with. The Revenue opposed restoration, citing delay in compliance with court orders.

The Revenue contended that restoration after delayed compliance is not permissible, referencing the Tribunal's limited power post-merger with higher judicial orders. The Tribunal had previously held in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) that accepting deposits post-extended deadlines for restoration may be viewed as contempt of court directions. The Tribunal concurred with this view, following the Doctrine of merger, and dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications in line with the Larger Bench decision.

The Tribunal found that the appeals could not be restored, aligning with the Doctrine of merger and the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision. The applications for restoration were consequently dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals, considering the delayed compliance with pre-deposit orders and the limitations post-merger with higher judicial orders. The decision was based on legal principles and prior Tribunal rulings, ensuring adherence to court directions and maintaining the integrity of judicial processes.