Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (7) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal. - C.E.A. No.11/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - SHRI RAJENDRA MENON SHRI K.K. TRIVEDI, JJ. Shri Kapil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER PER : RAJENDRA MENON, J. : This appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee under Section 35-G of the Central Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act']. It was admitted on 15-7-2015 for considering the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution only on account of the non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit as contained in Section 35(c) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re-deposit amount within a period of four weeks. However, as the appellants did not deposit this amount within the stipulated time, on 24-7-2013 the learned Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for noncompliance of the stay order passed on 12-12-2012. 6. On 22-11-2013 the appellant filed an application before the learned Appellate Tribunal seeking restoration of the appeal and produced relevant documents evidencing deposit of pre-deposit of ₹ 5 lacs in the application. This application was dismissed for want of prosecution, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant, when the matter was taken up on 6-5-2014. The application, dated 13-6-2014 filed by the appellant for restoration, also faced dismissal by the learned Appellate Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to a Division Bench judgement of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s Aditya Horological Ltd. vs. Commissioner vs. Commissioner, 2014 (307) ETL 132, to say that in similar circumstances the Karnataka High Court had restored the appeal and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. Similarly, Shri Jain invited our attention to another judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan and others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, 2015- TIOL- 90- SC- CX- LB, to say that the Supreme Court also restored the appeal for hearing after accepting the pre-deposit amount, on account of the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant from non-deposit of the requisite pre-deposit amount. Now, as the pre-deposit amount is deposited, the appeal deserves to be be restored to file in its original number. However, after filing of this application when none appeared on behalf of the appellant to prosecute the application, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-5-2014. 11. It is, therefore, clear that in this case initially the appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of pre-deposit amount of ₹ 5 lacs and subsequently after depositing the pre-deposit amount when restoration was sought for, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution, as the counsel so engaged by the appellant did not appear before the learned Tribunal. 12. In the memo of appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pre-deposit of ₹ 5 lacs, after orders passed on 12-12- 2012 the application seeking restoration of the appeal, should not have been dismissed, without ascribing any cogent and justifiable reason. On 20-11-2013 the appellant deposited the pre-deposit amount along with the application seeking restoration of the appeal. The assessee-appellant acted fairly and deposited the entire pre-deposit amount of ₹ 5 lacs. However, application was dismissed on 6-5-2014 by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, restoration of the appeal was sought for on 13-6-2013 by the appellant, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 20-01-2015. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view, that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates