9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dification, the appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said order was appealed against before the Tribunal, who remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of modification application. 2. During the remand proceedings, such modification application was considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the amount to be deposited was reduced to Rs. 3 Lakhs. Inasmuch as the said deposited was again not made by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 08.6.2005. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) was again challenged before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide its order dated 19.10.2005, directed the appellant to deposit the amount in question. The period to deposit was again extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re ready to deposit the entire amount within a period of two weeks, if the period is extended. In the interest of justice, we extend the period to deposit the directed amount by 29.11.2007, appellant would report such compliance to Commissioner (Appeals), who would decide the matter thereafter on merits. It is made clear that the appellate authority is free to dismiss the appeals for non-compliance, if the appellants not comply with the stay order. 8. Thus appellant failed to deposit the amount by the extended time limit and not complied with the said order. It is clear that first order for deposit was given in the year 2002 and till the end of 2009, i.e. even after a period of seven years, they did not comply with the orders. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts in question should not result in dismissal of appeals. He places reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of Venus Electronics and Control Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2006 (198) ELT 547 (Tri. Mum.), laying down that delay of over 10 years in complying with the pre-deposit order should not result in extinguishing the statutory right to appeal. 7. We have seen the above order. It is seen that the appellant in that case could not deposit the directed amount and subsequently they deposited the entire duty and penalty. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed that there is no outstanding due against the appellant and it was, in these circumstances, their appeal was restored. 8. However, in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
