- (1.) The above appeal has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 23rd June, 2009 whereby and whereunder His Lordship disposed of a number of writ petitions as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical and common, however, the problem were different. Naturally the reliefs in the writ petition were granted in different manner. The core issue involved in the matter is whether the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) is justified in dismissing the appeal preferred before it for noncompliance of orders passed by it, directing pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944) and under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act)
(2.) The Writ Petition No. 261 of 2008 (M/s. Premising Exports Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.), Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2008 (M/s. Shree Krishna Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 4006 of 2008 (Suresh Goyal & Sons v. Union of India and Ors.) were filed to challenge the orders passed in appeals by the Appellate Tribunal directing pre-deposit under section 35 of the 1944 Act or under section 129(e) of the 1962 Act. All the said writ petitions were kept pending for hearing and during pendency of all these writ petitions, appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non compliance of the orders directing pre-deposit. The Writ Petition No. 220 of 2008 (M/s. Shaman Ispat Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 1016 (Ms. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) were moved and further orders were passed by the Appellate Tribunal disposing the appeals for non-compliance of the orders directing pre-deposit.
(3.) The learned Trial Judge has recorded the submission of both the sides and after considering and interpreting the provision of both the Acts & Rules framed thereunder came to conclusion that on account of failure of pre-deposit the Tribunal could not dismiss the appeal. His Lordship also pleased to hold that it was not proper for the learned Tribunal to dismiss appeal when the writ petition was pending for adjudication.;