9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x appellate tribunal had committed an error in dismissing application for restoration being application No.C/ROA/606/11 filed by the appellant by following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lindt Exports and Ors. [2012 - TIOL-218-HC-DEL-CUS]? 3) Whether under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal had powers to restore an appeal which was dismissed for want of compliance of interim order? [2.0] Facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in nutshell are as under: [2.1] That the appellant herein imported one old vessel on filing of Bill of Entry. The same was provisionally assessed at reduced price on taking provisional assessment bond of Rs.12,39,065/and bank guarantee of Rs.2.5 lacs being 20% of the differential duty. The said bill of entry came to be finally assessed and the demand of differential duty of Rs.12,39,065/came to be confirmed by the adjudicating officer in the year 2000. That on finalization of provisional assessment, the bank guarantee of Rs.2.5 lacs furnished by the appellant came to be encashed by the department and the same was deposited in the government account vide challan dated 30.12.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disposing the same on merits. It appears that the appellant did not comply with the said order and did not deposit an amount of Rs.6 lacs as ordered by the Tribunal. That thereafter the appellant preferred application for modification of the stay order being Miscellaneous Application No.87/2004. The said application came to be decided vide order dated 12.04.2004 and the learned Tribunal dismissed the same. Simultaneously the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.04.2004 in MA No.87/2004, the appellant preferred appeal before this Court being Tax Appeal No.418/2004 and vide order dated 13.09.2004, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal. That thereafter the appellant filed an application for review of the order dated 13.09.2004 being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1/2005. That the aforesaid application also came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2005. That thereafter the appellant challenged the order passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No.418/2004 as well as the MCA, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP and vide order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Guj.) as well as in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy v. Union of India reported in 2006 (204) ELT 43 (Guj.) as well as the unreported decision of this Court in the case of Messrs Priya Dyers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Tax Appeal No.109/2013. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hussein Haji Harun (Supra) it is submitted that as held by this Court the order dismissing the appeal for noncompliance of the condition of predeposit of penalty and duty is not a final order and the appellate authority has power to consider the restoration of the appeal and on subsequently making the deposit of the amount as predeposit, the appeal can be restored and decided on merits. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case the appeal was dismissed for noncompliance of the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty and thereafter subsequently the appellant complied with the order and deposited the amount which was directed to be deposited as predeposit and thereafter restoration application was submitted which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal against which the appellant approached before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court has directed to restore the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite the aforesaid order the appellant did not comply with the said order, however, submitted miscellaneous application which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.04.2004 and as the amount of Rs.6 lacs was not deposited, considering its earlier order dated 08.12.2003, dismissed the appeal. That order passed in MA came to be challenged by the appellant before this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the application for review was submitted which also came to be dismissed. The appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP in the year 2005. That thereafter after a period of almost six years from the date of dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.6 lacs and thereafter submitted the restoration application requesting to restore the appeal submitting that now the appellant has already complied with the order of predeposit and the said application has been dismissed learned Tribunal by the impugned order. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer of the appellant to restore the appeal before the Tribunal is required to be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of predeposit is deposited after number of years from the date of dismissal of the appeal on the ground of noncompliance, in all such cases the appeals are required to be restored. There must be an end to every litigation. In the present case as stated herein above, the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to be dismissed in the year 2005 and even in the appeal and even prior thereto, number of opportunities were given to appellant to predeposit the amount, however appellant failed to avail such opportunity at the relevant time and subsequently the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.6 lacs after a lapse of six years from the date of dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal before it, which was dismissed for noncompliance of its earlier order, dismissed in the year 2003. [5.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present tax appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. [5.1] Consequently, the civil application for stay in main tax appeal also deserves t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
