2016 (1) TMI 96 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Pre deposit order not followed - Held that - As the said pre-deposit was not made their appeals were dismissed for non-compliance without going into the merits of the case. In view of the case laws relied upon by the main applicant and also after the pre-deposit ordered in the other cases, on the same issue a lesser deposit has been ordered by this Bench, the modification application filed by the main applicant is allowed. It directed that appellant M/s. Jay Mahalaxmi should deposit an amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only) within one month and report compliance to to Commissioner (Appeal) - Appeal restored conditionally.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration/modification of stay applications dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications filed for restoration/modification of stay applications dismissed for non-prosecution. The main appellant, represented by Shri Rahul Gajera, argued financial difficulties as the reason for not being able to pre-deposit the ordered amount of Rs. 15 lakh. Reference was made to previous cases where lesser deposits were ordered, citing the case of Dadi Impex Pvt. Limited and others vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandia, and the case law of Arjun Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. The Bench allowed the restoration of modification applications, considering the financial difficulties faced by the appellant. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 7,50,000 within one month, and another applicant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh for decision on merits.

In a detailed examination of the case records, the Bench observed that the first appellate authority had ordered pre-deposits, which were not made leading to the dismissal of appeals for non-compliance. However, in light of the case laws cited by the main applicant and previous instances of lesser deposits ordered by the Bench on the same issue, the modification applications were allowed. The directive was issued for the appellant to make the specified deposits within a stipulated time frame and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further action on the merits of the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders to ensure a fair consideration of the appeals on their merits.

The modification applications filed by the applicants were allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment, providing a clear resolution to the issue of restoration/modification of stay applications dismissed for non-prosecution. The judgment highlighted the significance of financial difficulties faced by the appellants in meeting pre-deposit requirements and underscored the need for compliance to enable a thorough examination of the appeals on their merits.