A pre-deposit story
THE Commissioner of Central Excise was pleased to confirm a demand of Rs. 61 lakhs on Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan. On appeal along with an application for Stay, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs.10 lakhs on 14.11.2011. On 22.02.2012.the CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit.
The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed on 26.07.2012. The Supreme Court on 03.01.2013 dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the High Court order. After this, the assessee deposited the amount as originally directed by the CESTAT and moved the Tribunal in a miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeals. The said application was dismissed, vide order dated 08.04.2013. Against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 12.11.2014 with the observations, "Once a substantive appeal has been filed before the High Court against an order of the Tribunal on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the order of the Tribunal, in such a case, would merge with the order of the High Court. No prayer was made before the High Court, which dismissed 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."
The Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. This time around, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to either side if the Tribunal is directed to accept the "pre-deposit amount" as deposited by the appellants and hear the appeal on merits .
Supreme Court;
- Directed the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" paid by the appellants, which is in compliance with its earlier order and then decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law and without reference to the period of limitation.
- Requested the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months.
- Clarified that all contentions of both the parties are left open.
And please remember, this order has no precedential value as the Supreme Court concluded, "We clarify that this order shall not be treated as precedent in any other case."