Judgment : Chief Justice 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29 October 2013 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directing appellant no.1 to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the duty confirmed (i.e. 50% of Rs.41,48,337/-) and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal further directed appellant no.2 to deposit penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/-imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 29 October 2013 is passed on the application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty for the purpose of the appellants' appeal being heard on merits. 2. At the request of the counsel, the appeal is itself taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, we are shocked to note that time and again the Tribunal has been dismissing appeals of the appellants for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit even in cases where the owner directly pre-deposits, the Tribunal is informed about the the appeal was listed before this Court for admission. In the facts of the present case also, the appellants filed the present appeal on 27 December 2013 from the impugned order and the appeal was listed for hearing before us on 20 January 2014. However, due to paucity of time, the appeal could not be taken up for admission and was adjourned. The appellants, therefore, informed the Tribunal by their advocate's letter dated 21 January 2014 to the Registrar of the Tribunal that the appeal before the High Court was not taken up for admission and was adjourned and therefore the Tribunal may adjourn the matter listed before it for compliance on 21 January 2014 to any other date after 4 February 2014 convenient to the Tribunal. We are informed by the counsel that the above fact was also informed to the Tribunal on 21 January 2014 at the hearing. However, the Tribunal did not grant any adjournment and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance on 21 January 2014 itself. 4. We are informed by the counsel that the above fact was also informed to the Tribunal on 21 January 2014 at the hearing. However, the Tribunal did not grant any adjournment and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance on 21 January 2014 itself. 4. When we called upon the learned counsel of the appellants to place on record a copy of the said order dated 21 January 2014, he states that the Tribunal has published a general notice on its website to the effect that for want of funds, the post office does not accept the postal communication from the Registry of the Tribunal and, therefore, no individual intimation will be given by the post. This is very sorry state of affairs. The said notice reads as under:- “Date: 01.01.2014 Notice Sub: Delivery of Tapal from CESTAT, Mumbai-reg Due to paucity of fund postal department has stopped giving services to this office. Because of which, this office is not in a position to dispatch / deliver hearing notices, Orders, Letters, appeal memo etc. to the concerned parties/advocate/consultants. In meantime, you are requested to depute your staff (with proper authorization) to CESTAT, Mumbai at regular interval to collect the tapal meant for you, till the issue resolves. You can confirm the availability of tapal by calling dispatch section on Tel No.022-2375 4933 ext.305. Further, you are requested to verify Cause Lists and attend matter as per Cause List even though you have not received hearing notice. Further, you can confirm the same from concerned branch registry. (T. Viswaprakash) Deputy Registrar, CESTAT, MUMBAI. Copy to:- Bar Association/AR office/Notice Board/website.” The advocate further points out that the order of dismissal was pronounced in open court by the Tribunal. However, the order dated 21 January 2014 dismissing its appeal is not yet ready with the Registry of the Tribunal. Apart from the above administrative issue of the Tribunal, it is most unfortunate that the Tribunal did not wait for admission hearing of this appeal by this Court. 5. It was as far back as on 29 September 2009 that in JaiprakashStrips Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2009 (243) ELT 341 (Bom.), another Division Bench of this Court made the following observations: “6. 5. It was as far back as on 29 September 2009 that in JaiprakashStrips Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2009 (243) ELT 341 (Bom.), another Division Bench of this Court made the following observations: “6. One additional fact in this case is that appeal was dismissed when the matter was pending before this court by the Tribunal even when its attention was brought to the fact inspite of that the appeal was dismissed. We are aware that it is open to the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for non compliance. We are also aware of the fact that it is open to the Tribunal in the absence of pre-deposit by the stipulated date to dismiss the appeal. However, when a party brings to the notice of the Tribunal that an appeal is preferred and is pending judicial exercise to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, would be to grant reasonable time to enable the petitioner to produce an order from this court and on failure to do so proceed with the matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. 7. Considering the above facts, the order of dismissal of appeal is set aside. The order of pre-deposit is varied to the extent that the amount already deposited would be considered as pre-deposit. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits.” 6. Again on 4 July 2013, we had an occasion to deal with the similar situation where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance in spite of pendency of appeal before this Court at the admission stage and this Court in SaswadMill Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, 2013 (32) STR 177 (Bom.) observed as under:- “2. However, in spite of the aforesaid fact having been brought to the notice of the CESTAT when the matter was called out and also having brought it to the notice of the registry of the Tribunal by letter dated 2 July 2013, the CESTAT insisted on the appellant reporting compliance and on failure to do so, dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of stay order dated 14 May 2013. 3. It is most unfortunate that the CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 14 May 2011, inspite of the aforesaid facts being brought to the notice of the CESTAT. 3. It is most unfortunate that the CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 14 May 2011, inspite of the aforesaid facts being brought to the notice of the CESTAT. In all fairness to the appellant and deference to this Court, CESTAT ought to have awaited the result of the hearing of appeal before this Court which was fixed on 3 July 2013 itself. An adjournment by a couple of days in the above circumstances would have been in the interests of justice besides avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.” 7. In view of the above orders, the dismissal of the appeal in the above circumstances is completely uncalled for. 8. Coming to the merits of the appeal challenging the order dated 29 October 2013, learned counsel for the appellants addressed us and submitted that in the facts of this case the Tribunal was not justified in directing appellant no.1 to make pre-deposit of 50% of the duty amount and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and also directing appellant no.2 to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent – Revenue, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions at this stage for the reason that the issues raised are in respect of the factual aspects of the controversy which is subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The same would be explained in depth at the final hearing of the appellants' appeal on merits. At this stage, we see no substantial question of law arising. Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits at this stage. 10. Even so, we are of the view that when the Tribunal itself found that it was not a case requiring the appellant no.1 company to deposit the entire duty amount but only 50% of the duty demand. It follows that ordinarily the Tribunal should not direct the appellant to deposit any amount towards penalty. We are of the view that where the Tribunal has granted a partial dispensation with pre-deposit, then in such cases it should not normally direct pre-deposit attributable to the penalty amount. It follows that ordinarily the Tribunal should not direct the appellant to deposit any amount towards penalty. We are of the view that where the Tribunal has granted a partial dispensation with pre-deposit, then in such cases it should not normally direct pre-deposit attributable to the penalty amount. In cases where the Tribunal is of the view that notwithstanding the grant of partial dispensation with pre-deposit, the amount of penalty or part of it should be deposited, the Tribunal shall give strong reasons to indicate why the deposit attributable to penalty amounts should be made. In fact, we have noticed that the Tribunal in its orders, while granting partial deposit, has generally not been insisting on deposit of penalty amount. 11. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 29 October 2013 of CESTAT directing appellant no.1 to deposit a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and directing appellant no.2 to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty. The rest of the order of the Tribunal is not disturbed. We accordingly direct the appellants to deposit the amount equal to 50% of the duty confirmed. Upon deposit by the appellants the amount equal to 50% of the duty confirmed, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining dues and there shall be interim stay against coercive recovery thereof during pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. 12. Appellant no.1 shall make the pre-deposit of 50% of the duty amount within 8 weeks. Appeal Nos. E/85685 and 85686/13-Mum are restored to the file of CESTAT, Mumbai. 13. Having regard to the fact that this is the third instance which is brought to our notice where the Tribunal has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance of the said order of the Tribunal in spite of having been informed about the appeal before this Court being on board or it is adjourned to a near date for admission, we direct that henceforth the Tribunal shall not dismiss any appeal for non-compliance on the above ground and give reasonable time of about a couple of weeks to the appellant to obtain urgent orders from this Court where the Tribunal is informed about the appeal pending before this Court at the admission stage. The Tribunal shall at least give the parties 2 weeks time to move this Court for early hearing of the appeal before this Court.