Sujhan Instruments vs Customs, Excise and Service Tax

R. Sudhakar, J.

The brief order of the Tribunal, on which we do not find any reason to interfere, is as follows:-

''''None appears on behalf of the applicant. There is no application for adjournment. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that on earlier occasions nobody turned up on behalf of the applicant. On perusal of the records, we find that the learned Advocate requested for adjournment, which was granted. Today, nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. It seems that the applicant is not interest to proceed in the stay petition hearing. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to predeposit the entire amount of tax of Rs. 31,17,332/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-two only) within a period of four weeks from today. Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of interest and penalty would be waived and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 27th October, 2014.''''

This is a case of pre-deposit and on the abject failure on the part of the appellant herein/applicant before the Tribunal in not prosecuting the stay petition when it was called on more than one occasion, the Tribunal had no other choice except to order for pre-deposit of the entire amount. No doubt, as pleaded by Mr. Prabakar, there is an earlier order of the Tribunal granting waiver of pre-deposit dated 31.7.2012. But it is the duty of the appellant herein/applicant before the Tribunal to point out at the time of hearing about the earlier orders. The Tribunal cannot be expected to go through what had happened in the past to give the relief, if the applicant itself was not serious in pursuing the matter. Further more, the plea for adjournment was based on filing of two petitions enclosed at pages 64 and 65 of the typed set of papers. A glimpse of those petitions does not show any seal or endorsement evidencing such filing before the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to accept such a plea of filing of petitions for adjournment and they were not considered by the Tribunal. The callous attitude of the appellant does not deserve any sympathy at the hands of this Court. Moreover, no substantial question of law arises for admission of the appeal. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. We, however, permit the appellant herein to move the Tribunal for early hearing of the appeal in the light of the earlier orders. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is also dismissed.