Case Law Details
The appeal could not be dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit without considering the application for the extension of time filed in respect of pre-deposit
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
Being aggrieved with decision of pre-deposit of 25%, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata wherein vide Order dated July 11, 2013, the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal was modified to provide that instead of deposit of 25% of the Impugned
Cenvat credit, the Appellant will furnish a Bank Guarantee issued by any Nationalized Bank covering the duty demanded within fortnight i.e. by July 26, 2013.
However, the Appellant failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee within the time stipulated by the Order of the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, the Appellant filed an application for extension of time to furnish the Bank Guarantee on August 1, 2013.
During the pendency of the application for extension, the main appeal came up for hearing before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata, which was dismissed by an Order dated August 19, 2013 due to non-compliance of furnishing of Bank Guarantee in terms of the Order of the Hon’ble High Court. After the dismissal of the main appeal by the Hon’ble Tribunal, the application for extension of time was also dismissed by vide an order dated August 29, 2013 on the ground that there was no longer any requirement to furnish any Bank Guarantee because the main appeal itself had been dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant further preferred two separate appeals before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata. The Hon’ble High Court held that since the CESTAT had dismissed the appeal for default in compliance with pre-deposit without considering the application for extension of time for making pre-deposit, the matter is remanded back to the CESTAT subject to compliance with pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 1 Crore with the Commissioner within a month to revive the case and to be heard by the CESTAT on merits.
Author Bio
