Open iDraf
Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kanpur

Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan
v.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kanpur

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 3921 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4475 of 2015 | 22-04-2015


1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal Defective No.124 of 2014, dated 12.11.2014.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has rejected the appeal and has confirmed the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application of the appellants-herein for restoration of their appeals.

4. The short facts leading to the present lis are: for non-payment of "pre-deposit" the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the appellants-herein, vide order dated 22.02.2012. It is an admitted fact that the said order has attained finality.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellants had filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, vide order dated 26.07.2012, rejected the appeal of the appellants. The appellants had carried the matter before this Court by way of a special leave petition. The said special leave petition was also dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 03.01.2013.

6. It would be pertinent to note that immediately thereafter, the appellants have complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the "pre-deposit" of certain amounts.

7. After depositing the amount with the Excise Department, the appellants filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal for restoration of their appeals on the ground that its directions have been complied with. The said application was dismissed, vide order dated 08.04.2013. Further the appeal, before the High Court, against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and order, dated 12.11.2014.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and carefully perused the records of the case.

9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if we direct the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" as deposited by the appellants and hear the appeal on merits, it will not cause any prejudice to either side.

10. In view of the above, we now direct 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.

11. We request the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from today. We clarify that all contentions of both the parties are left open.

12. The civil appeal is disposed in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions.

13. We clarify that this order shall not be treated as precedent in any other case.

14. Ordered accordingly.

Advocates List

Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate, Avi Tandon, Rohit Stalekar, Umang Gupta and Sunny Choudhary, Advocates., for the Appellants; Shirin Khajuria, T.M. Singh and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates., for the Respondents  

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE H.L. DATTU, C.J.

HON'BLE JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

HON'BLE JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA

Eq Citation

(2015) 10 SCC 629

2015 (319) ELT 370

LQ/SC/2015/628

HeadNote

Excise — Appeal — Appeal bond/predeposit — Non-payment of — Effect — Appeal dismissed for non-payment of predeposit — Appellants complied with directions issued by Tribunal with regard to predeposit of certain amounts — Held, if Tribunal directed to accept predeposit amount as deposited by appellants and hear appeal on merits, it will not cause any prejudice to either side — Tribunal directed to accept predeposit amount paid by appellants and then decide appeal on merits in accordance with law and without reference to period of limitation — Clarified that this order shall not be treated as precedent in any other case — Central Excise Act, 1944, Ss. 35-C and 35-CA (Paras 9 to 13)