TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the appeal for extension of time for pre-deposit or for restoration of the appeal. No such prayer was also made before the Supreme Court when the special leave petition was dismissed. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was not in error in dismissing the miscellaneous application. no substantial question of law would arise in the appeal. - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs v. Lindt Exports [2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal Defective No. - 124 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2014 - Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,CJ Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,JJ. For the Appellant : Krishna Dev Vyas,S. D. Singh For the Respondent :- Vinod Kant S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10 lacs within a period of eight weeks. Subject to the said deposit, a stay was granted. The appeals were dismissed on 22 February 2012 for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. The appellants filed a substantive appeal before this Court against the order of the Tribunal on the application for waiver. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26 July 2012. A special leave petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 January 2013. After the dismissal of the special leave petition, the appellants filed a review application which was rejected by the Division Bench on 19 September 2014. In the meantime, the appellants deposited the amount as required by the order of the Tribunal dated 14 November 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mselves before the Tribunal stood dismissed for non-compliance. The appellants did not apply for extension of time for pre-deposit either before this Court which dismissed the appeal on 26 July 2012 or before the Supreme Court when the special leave petition was dismissed on 3 January 2013. Once an order has been passed by the High Court on an appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal on an application for waiver of pre-deposit, and the order of the Tribunal stood merged with the order passed by the High Court, the Tribunal could not thereafter have extended the time or granted restoration of the appeal. This view is consistent with the law laid down by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Lindt Exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty amount or duty demand. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Anr. v. Mst. Katiji Ors., 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.), when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the subsequent decision of the Gujarat High Court in Priya Dyers (supra), the Tribunal had passed an order of pre-deposit. The special civil application before the Gujarat High Court was withdrawn to enable the appellant to move a modification application before the Tribunal and when that attempt failed, the High Court was moved again. After the High Court dismissed the proceedings, the Supreme Court was moved in a special le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
