Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah v. Union Of India And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Leave was granted. The matter arose from proceedings before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) concerning Appeal No. E/1192 of 2004. On 15-9-2005, CESTAT directed the appellant to deposit about Rs. 18 lakhs as a condition precedent under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for entertaining the appeal. On 18-5-2007, the deposit requirement was reduced to Rs. 9 lakhs. On 5-11-2007, CESTAT dismissed the appeal because the appellant could deposit only Rs. 6 lakhs.

The appellant sought restoration: a first restoration application was rejected on 25-6-2008; a second restoration application (filed on 21-8-2008) was rejected on 7-5-2009. The appellant challenged the 7-5-2009 order by a writ petition. It is recorded that, pending the second restoration application, the appellant paid the remaining Rs. 3 lakhs.

On 21-11-2011, the appellant filed Central Excise Appeal No. 26 of 2011 under Section 32-G of the Central Excise Act, challenging the CESTAT order dated 7-5-2009. The High Court dismissed this appeal on the ground that the appellant did not disclose that the writ petition challenging the 7-5-2009 order had been dismissed. The appellant asserted that the statutory appeal did disclose this fact. Before this Court, on 13-8-2012, the appellant was asked if it was still willing to deposit an additional Rs. 9 lakhs for revival of the dismissed appeal; on 21-8-2012, counsel stated willingness and six weeks' time was granted. The appellant subsequently deposited Rs. 9 lakhs on 1-10-2012 (as certified by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Range Gondia), resulting in a total deposit of Rs. 18 lakhs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in light of the appellant having deposited the additional amount directed by this Court (bringing the total deposit to Rs. 18 lakhs), the appellant's CESTAT appeal (Appeal No. E/1192 of 2004) should be revived and directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court focused on compliance with the deposit condition connected with entertaining/reviving the appeal. It noted that it had earlier indicated that the plea for revival of the dismissed appeal could be considered if the appellant deposited an additional Rs. 9 lakhs within time granted. The Court accepted the documentary proof (a certificate dated 1-10-2012 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Range Gondia) showing the deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs on 1-10-2012.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the appellant had deposited the additional Rs. 9 lakhs and that the total deposit made was Rs. 18 lakhs. In view of this compliance, the Court revived the appeal pending before CESTAT and directed CESTAT to dispose of it in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL REVIVED AND DISPOSED OF in terms of directing revival of Appeal No. E/1192 of 2004 before CESTAT and requiring CESTAT to decide it in accordance with law.

The direct effect is that the appellant's CESTAT appeal, previously dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit condition, stands restored for adjudication on merits/according to law by CESTAT, with the Court recording that Rs. 18 lakhs has been deposited. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or lay down any new precedent.