2017 (4) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ind the party whom he or she represents or at least to the extent of causing irreparable prejudice. This is exactly what happened in this case. The appellant did not have any alternative remedy; yet the CESTAT permitted withdrawal of the appeal. In refusing to restore the appeal on the technical ground that the applicant’s contention that there was no mandatory pre-deposit condition, the CESTAT me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ESTAT ) which rejected its application for restoration of the appeal on the ground that on 3-7-2015, the appeal itself was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had claimed duty redemption on the basis of exports made. The customs authority issued a show cause notice on 24-3-2009; adjudication resulted in confirmation of the demand to the tune of ₹ 2,99,6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se. The appellant did not have any alternative remedy; yet the CESTAT permitted withdrawal of the appeal. In refusing to restore the appeal on the technical ground that the applicant s contention that there was no mandatory pre-deposit condition, the CESTAT merely compounded the injustice. 5. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeal preferred before the CESTAT i.e. ST No. 51 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X