75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

July 2016

2016 (42) STR 668 (Mad.) Classic Builders (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Tribunal has power and jurisdiction to restore the appeal on belated payment of pre-deposit on the basis of merits of the case.

Facts
The Appellant’s application for pre-deposit in installments was rejected by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. Furthermore, restoration of appeal consequent to belated pre-deposit was also dismissed. Revenue contended that Tribunal had become “functus officio” on account of dismissal of appeal and it had no power to restore the appeal, once it is dismissed. Appellant contended that they had a very good case on merits which needs to be considered while deciding restoration of appeal.

Held
Right to appeal is a statutory right and pre-deposit requirement is procedural. Therefore, delay in making pre-deposit cannot hamper the primary right of appeal.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2016 (42) STR 425( Ori.) Maa Engineering vs. Registrar, CESTAT, Kolkata.

2016 (42) STR 450 (Tri-Mum.) Commr. Of Ex., Goa vs. Kamat Constructions & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.