2015 (10) TMI 328 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Non compliance with pre deposit order - Held that - It is seen from the Revenue s EH application that appellants have not made predeposit of ₹ 75 lakhs as ordered by the High Court. There is no proof of deposit available on record. Therefore, appellant failed to comply with Hon ble High Court s order 2014 (2) TMI 403 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of High Court order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal for early hearing and disposal due to non-compliance with High Court orders.
- Compliance with predeposit amount as per High Court order.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application for early hearing and disposal of the appeal as the appellants failed to comply with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. The appeal involved a significant amount of Rs. 2,73,31,320. The Tribunal had earlier directed the appellant to predeposit the entire anti-dumping duty amount within a specified timeframe, which was later modified by the High Court reducing the predeposit amount to Rs. 75 lakhs.

2. The appellant had approached the High Court through a writ petition, followed by a writ appeal, challenging the predeposit order. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court had issued interim orders and extended the stay of predeposit for a certain period. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, emphasizing that only prima facie case and balance of convenience needed to be considered regarding pre-deposit.

3. In light of the High Court's order, the appellant was obligated to comply with the reduced predeposit amount of Rs. 75 lakhs. However, the appellant failed to make the predeposit as ordered by the High Court. The counsel representing the appellant informed the Tribunal that there were no instructions from the client and no correspondence received after the High Court's order.

4. The Tribunal noted that there was no proof of deposit available on record, indicating the appellant's non-compliance with the High Court's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for failing to adhere to the High Court's directive regarding the predeposit amount. The Revenue's application for early hearing was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with court orders and the consequences of non-compliance in legal proceedings, emphasizing the significance of following directives issued by higher judicial authorities.