Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 385 - HC - Central ExciseFailure to comply with the order of pre-deposit - tribunal dismissed the appeal - Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in passing its order dated 14.10.2013 decline the appeals on merits for the reason the action stated in para 3 of its's order - Held that:- The tribunal has to be specifically vested with the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We are inclined to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [2014 (11) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT] to the present case as well. However, we find that no litigant much less placed on par with the appellant before us has the absolute right to insist on the appeal being heard even when he does not comply with the conditions imposed on him while granting him discretionary and equitable relief of interim stay of recovery of taxes. The conditions that have been imposed by the tribunal while granting such a discretionary and equitable relief have never been questioned by the appellant and rather he has accepted the same. He therefore, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same and by relying on the present state of law as emerging from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The consequences of a breach of such a conditional order was also not an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. The law laid down in the above decision cannot be stretched and applied to a situation where the conditional order is not complied with and still the appeal must be decided on merits. That was a case where the appellant and for no fault of his, was visited with a dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution. He lost a valuable right of appeal and adjudication of the same on merits. Such is not the case before us. The appellant approached the tribunal on two occasions. Prior thereto, he approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and applied for discretionary and equitable reliefs. There was a conditional stay. He did not comply with that condition as well. Rather he did not comply with the conditions imposed by the tribunal as well. - Decided against assessee.
|