2015 (11) TMI 1352 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that - The ratio of the Apex Court decisions 2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , 1985 (5) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and High Court order 2010 (12) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to state that the applicant was supposed to comply with the order dated 18.11.2014 on 24.01.2015 but has not complied the said order not challenged it but initially sought for extension of time for compliance. The miscellaneous application was filed before this Bench only on 06.02.2015 after the expiry of due date and again on 17.07.2015. In view of the foregoing discussions and by respectfully following the Apex court decisions and Hon ble High Court orders discussed, we do not find any apparent and manifest mistake to exercise the powers to recall the miscellaneous order dated 24.04.2014 as pleaded by the applicants. However, we allow the applicant a further period of 4 weeks as a last chance to comply the stay order - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit order.
2. Application for recall of stay order.
3. Tribunal's jurisdiction to review its own order.
4. Legal precedents on recalling orders for non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The applicant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order of Rs. 1,30,000 within the specified time frame. Despite seeking extensions and filing miscellaneous applications, the compliance was not met, leading to dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner for non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld the pre-deposit order considering the facts and decisions cited by the applicant.

2. The applicant filed multiple applications for recalling the stay order, citing subsequent miscellaneous orders and seeking reconsideration. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions, found that the order dated 24.11.2014 was correctly issued based on the circumstances and facts presented. The reliance on a later order for recall was deemed inappropriate.

3. The Tribunal deliberated on its jurisdiction to review its own order in light of the applicant's plea for reconsideration. Legal arguments were presented regarding the Tribunal's authority to revisit facts considered in the stay order and the limitations on its power to review decisions already made.

4. Referring to legal precedents, including Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of finality in orders related to pre-deposit requirements. The decisions highlighted the limited scope for recalling orders once compliance deadlines have passed, especially in cases involving statutory obligations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's miscellaneous applications for recalling the stay order but granted a final opportunity for compliance within a specified period. The decision was guided by legal principles emphasizing the importance of adhering to pre-deposit requirements and the limited scope for revisiting such orders after deadlines have lapsed. The case was adjourned for further proceedings on the specified date.