2004 (2) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in depositing the required amount for stay petition.
2. Justification for condoning the delay in deposit.
3. Opposition by the Revenue for condoning the delay.
4. Consideration of financial hardships as a reason for delay.
5. Comparison with a similar case for condoning the delay.
6. Decision to allow the Miscellaneous Application and restore the appeal.

Issue 1: Delay in depositing the required amount for stay petition
The appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs within a specified period in relation to a Stay Petition. However, they failed to comply with this directive, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

Issue 2: Justification for condoning the delay in deposit
The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of the appeal, citing the death of the Managing Director's son as a reason for the delay in depositing the required amount. They argued that this event caused financial distress and hindered their ability to fulfill the deposit requirement.

Issue 3: Opposition by the Revenue for condoning the delay
The Revenue strongly opposed the appellants' request to condone the delay, highlighting the significant gap between the issuance of the initial order and the eventual deposit made by the appellants in question.

Issue 4: Consideration of financial hardships as a reason for delay
After evaluating both parties' arguments, the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in depositing the amount but considered the financial constraints faced by the appellants due to the tragic circumstances surrounding the Managing Director's son's death.

Issue 5: Comparison with a similar case for condoning the delay
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a delay in making a pre-deposit was condoned due to financial hardships faced by the appellant. This precedent influenced the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in the present case.

Issue 6: Decision to allow the Miscellaneous Application and restore the appeal
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the financial hardships and lack of action by the Revenue during the interim period, the Tribunal decided to allow the Miscellaneous Application. The appeal was restored, and a date was set for final disposal.

Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in depositing the required amount but chose to condone it based on the financial hardships faced by the appellants. The decision to restore the appeal was influenced by previous case law and the lack of recovery actions taken by the Revenue during the delay period.