The Court: By an order dated 30 April, 2013 passed in Appeal No. Ex.Ap.49/11, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant before us to make a pre-deposit of 25% of the CENVAT Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 15 July, 2013.
Aggrieved by the order dated 30 April, 2013, the appellant presented a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 19685 (W) of 2013. By an order dated 11 July, 2013 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the order passed by the learned Tribunal was varied and/or modified as follows:
“Accordingly, the order impugned in this writ petition is modified to the extent that instead of deposit of 25% of the CENVAT Credit as directed, the petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee issued by any Nationalized Bank covering the duty demanded within fortnight from date. The petitioner shall go on renewing the said Bank Guarantee until disposal of the appeal or until the order that may be passed by the Tribunal in the pending appeal. There shall be an unconditional stay of the said order for a period of fortnight from date.
If the petitioner fails to furnish the Bank Guarantee within the period stipulated hereinabove, the order impugned in this writ petition shall automatically stand revived and the authorities shall be at liberty to take all appropriate steps in accordance with law.”
The appellant, however, failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee within the time stipulated by the order dated 11 July, 2013, to be precise, the time for furnishing the Bank Guarantee expired on 26 July, 2013.
We are told that an application for extension of time to furnish the Bank Guarantee was made on 1 August, 2013. During the pendency of that application, the appeal came up before the Tribunal and was dismissed by an order dated 19 August, 2013. After the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, the application for extension of time to furnish the Bank Guarantee was dismissed by an order dated 29 August, 2013 on the ground that there was no longer any requirement to furnish any Bank Guarantee because the appeal itself had been dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29 August, 2013 dismissing the application for extension of time to furnish the Bank Guarantee as also aggrieved by the order dated 19 August, 2013 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal, two separate appeals have been preferred. Both the appeal have been taken up together and are disposed of by the following orders:
In the event, a sum of Rs. 1 crore is deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner within a month from date, the Appeal No. Ex.Ap.49/11 shall stand revived and shall be heard by the Tribunal on merit.
In the event, such deposit is not made, both the appeals shall stand dismissed.
Both the appeals are, therefore, disposed of.