9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 107 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - delay condoned on sufficient reasons shown - HELD THAT - No purpose will be served by keeping the appeal pending in the files of Tribunal as there is no order on merits. With the consent of both sides, we proceed to dispose the appeal itself. On perusal of records, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the merits of the case - The appeal is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to change of address, non-compliance with pre-deposit direction, remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Analysis: The appellant filed an application for condonation of a 1,930-day delay in filing the appeal, citing non-receipt of the impugned order due to a change in address. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the interim order, which required a pre-deposit of ?15 lakhs, the disputed demand. The appellant, upon receiving notice through a Customs broker, filed the appeal before the Tribunal along with the delay petition. Subsequently, the High Court directed the appellant to deposit an additional ?5 lakhs, in addition to the ?4 lakhs already paid. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation reasonable and allowed the condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for compliance with the High Court's directive. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, without considering the merits of the case. Recognizing that keeping the appeal pending without a decision on merits serves no purpose, the Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, decided to dispose of the appeal. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to decide on the merits of the appeal. The appellant was directed to comply with the High Court's directive to deposit the additional ?5 lakhs within the specified timeline. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for compliance with the High Court's order and a decision on the merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).
|
