1992 (6) TMI 116 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of stay application due to non-appearance.
2. Restoration of stay application.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit requirements.
4. Tribunal's inherent powers to recall or modify orders.
5. Procedural justice vs. substantive justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Stay Application Due to Non-Appearance:
The Bench had dismissed the stay application on 30th April 1992 as none appeared on the hearing date. The Registry was directed to issue a notice to the appellants, asking them to show proof of compliance with the pre-deposit requirements and indicating that the appeal would be liable for dismissal if no such proof was furnished by the specified date.

2. Restoration of Stay Application:
The appellants filed a Miscellaneous application supported by an affidavit, explaining that their Consultant, who was handling the matter, was sick and could not appear. They argued that the dismissal of the stay application was a harsh step causing undue hardship. They requested the restoration of the stay application to address arguments on its merits.

3. Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirements:
The learned DR contended that the appellants had not produced any proof of deposit of the penalty amount, and hence, the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance. The appellants countered that the Tribunal should consider their explanation and restore the application, as it is a general practice to do so if the reply to the show cause notice is satisfactory.

4. Tribunal's Inherent Powers to Recall or Modify Orders:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the inherent power to restore the stay application. It was noted that Section 129E of the Customs Act allows the Tribunal to dispense with the deposit of duty or penalty if it would cause undue hardship, subject to conditions safeguarding the interests of Revenue. Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to restore appeals dismissed for default. The Tribunal inferred that it has inherent powers to restore stay applications dismissed for non-pursuance if the explanation is satisfactory.

5. Procedural Justice vs. Substantive Justice:
The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Kalipada Dass Others v. Bimal Krishna Sen Gupta, emphasizing that procedural requirements are steps in aid of justice, not substantive justice itself. Penalties for procedural lapses should be commensurate with the gravity of the lapse. The Tribunal also considered rulings from the Calcutta and Madras High Courts, which supported the restoration of appeals or stay applications if procedural lapses were satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the explanation given by the appellants for non-appearance due to their Consultant's sickness was satisfactory. It emphasized that justice should not be denied due to procedural lapses. Hence, the order of dismissal of the stay application was recalled, and the stay application was restored to be disposed of on its merits after hearing the appellants.