2024 (9) TMI 1042 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement - Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in this case, on 27.08.2015, the appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, the appellants pre-deposited the amount within a week i.e., on 02.09.2015 and filed applications to restore the appeals. However, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed those applications on the ground that the Tribunal has become functus officio after the dismissal of the appeals. In the instant case, within one week of the dismissal of the appeals, the appellants have complied with the earlier orders and pre-deposited the respective amounts. Therefore, in view of the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appeals are liable to be allowed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement; Restoration of appeal post-dismissal; Applicability of functus officio principle to Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of appeal dismissal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the appellants and others to pre-deposit certain amounts towards penalty, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of appeals in 2015 under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the appellants made the payments as ordered and sought restoration of the appeals. However, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, citing functus officio, implying its authority had ceased post-appeal dismissal.

The appellants argued that immediate payment post-appeal dismissal should allow for restoration, referencing two Division Bench Judgments supporting their stance. Conversely, the respondent contended that once an appeal is dismissed, the Tribunal lacks authority for restoration, citing a relevant Division Bench Judgment. The Court noted the timely payment by the appellants within a week of dismissal and the differing interpretations of the functus officio principle.

In a detailed comparison of the cited judgments, the Court highlighted a case where restoration was allowed despite delayed payment, contrasting it with the present scenario where prompt compliance was met. Emphasizing the distinction, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and setting aside the Tribunal's orders. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to restore the appeals and proceed with the merits, granting parties the opportunity to present their arguments. The Court concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras examined the nuances of appeal restoration post-dismissal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. By analyzing relevant precedents and the timely actions of the appellants, the Court overturned the Tribunal's decisions, emphasizing the importance of prompt compliance in seeking appeal restoration.