2018 (3) TMI 1397 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Appeal without examining the merits under Section 129E of the Act in view of the Order dated 16.11.2015 of this Hon ble High Court granting unconditional waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit in case of other importers? Held that - Sub-section (1) of Section 129B states that the parties be given an opportunity of being heard, but, the jurisdiction vesting in the Tribunal is an appellate jurisdiction. It enables it to pass such orders as it think fit, but, particularly confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority who passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. The various Sub-sections of Section 129B would denote that the Tribunal can postpone or adjourn the hearing so as to accommodate party who seeks a personal hearing but, in no case, the Tribunal is empowered to dispose of the appeal without adjudication on merits merely because there is no compliance reported by the assessee with the terms and conditions imposed on it when the Tribunal considered a stay application or passed its order thereon. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal - The Tribunal shall now adjudicate the Appeal on merits in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of the High Court's order granting unconditional waiver of pre-deposit to other importers.
3. Tribunal's power to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits.
4. Equitable and discretionary relief entitlement based on the appellant's conduct.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Tribunal's Dismissal of the Appeal for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirements:
The appellants were dissatisfied with the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal's order stated, "The pre-deposit is not complied with, hence we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance." The appellants argued that such dismissal was impermissible under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court noted that Section 129E, prior to its amendment, required the deposit of duty and interest or penalty pending appeal but allowed for waiver in cases of undue hardship. The Tribunal's power under Section 129B was highlighted, emphasizing the requirement to adjudicate appeals on merits, not merely dismiss them for non-compliance.

2. Applicability of the High Court's Order Granting Unconditional Waiver of Pre-Deposit to Other Importers:
The High Court had previously granted an unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit requirement for other importers. The appellants contended that the Tribunal should have considered this order while dismissing their appeal. The High Court acknowledged this argument, noting that the Tribunal's initial stay order relied on a similar case (Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd.) where the High Court had granted relief. The Tribunal's failure to consider this precedent was a point of contention.

3. Tribunal's Power to Dismiss an Appeal for Non-Compliance Without Adjudicating on Merits:
The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 129B is appellate, requiring it to adjudicate appeals on merits. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance without examining the merits was found to be contrary to the statutory provisions. The High Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, which held that the Tribunal must dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for default or non-compliance.

4. Equitable and Discretionary Relief Entitlement Based on the Appellant's Conduct:
The Revenue argued that the appellant's conduct did not warrant equitable and discretionary relief, as they failed to comply with the conditional stay order and did not challenge the initial stay order. The High Court, however, focused on the Tribunal's statutory duty to adjudicate appeals on merits, irrespective of the appellant's conduct. The Tribunal's order was found to be vitiated by a serious error of law, as it dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's orders, directing the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of adjudicating appeals on merits and the limitations on the Tribunal's power to dismiss appeals for non-compliance without examining the substantive issues involved.