9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 595 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre-deposit - Application for restoration - Condonation of delay - appellant challenged the High Court s Order before the Hon ble Supreme Court - Supreme Court on 18-12-2008 ordered thus we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the time for deposit is extended by eight weeks - Where the Hon ble Supreme Court stipulated a period for deposit of an amount by the appellant, they ought to have complied with the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court - Where the appellant made the deposit belatedly, it was open to them to move the Hon ble Supreme Court for condonation of the delay - application is dismissed
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. 2. Delay in depositing the required amount as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Entertainability of the application for restoration of the appeal without compliance with the Supreme Court's Order. Issue 1: Restoration of Appeal The appellant filed an application seeking restoration of their appeal, which was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal had directed the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 2.00 crores towards duty within a specified time frame. However, the appellants failed to comply with this direction. They challenged the Tribunal's order in a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which extended the time for deposit but upheld the requirement. The Tribunal concluded that the application for restoration of the appeal could only be entertained upon compliance with the Supreme Court's Order, and since there was no such compliance, the application was dismissed. Issue 2: Delay in Deposit The Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores within a specific time frame. The appellant made two deposits within the stipulated time but delayed the final payment of Rs. 1.00 crore. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in the final payment could not be condoned. The Tribunal highlighted that when a specific period is set by the Supreme Court for deposit, compliance is mandatory, and any delay should be addressed by approaching the Supreme Court for condonation. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has the authority to condone such delays. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay in the payment of Rs. 1.00 crore could not be overlooked. Issue 3: Entertainability of the Application The Tribunal reiterated that the present application for restoration of the appeal could only be considered if the appellants had complied with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order regarding the deposit. As the appellants failed to meet this requirement, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the directives of the Supreme Court and highlighted that non-compliance with such orders would result in the dismissal of restoration applications. Therefore, the application was dismissed due to the lack of compliance with the Supreme Court's Order. This detailed analysis of the judgment sheds light on the issues surrounding the restoration of the appeal, the delay in depositing the required amount, and the entertainability of the application in the absence of compliance with the Supreme Court's Order.
|
