2004 (3) TMI 643 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for restoration of appeal due to dismissal for non-compliance with interim order and failure to appear before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involves an application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed due to non-compliance with an interim order and failure to appear before the Tribunal. The appellant had filed an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 4 lakhs within a specified period. However, on the day of the hearing, the appellant did not report compliance or appear before the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in accordance with Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that compliance with the interim order had been made by depositing Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellant had informed their consultant about the compliance but failed to inform the Registry. The consultant passed away, and the appellant could not locate the family or the case record, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. On the other hand, the respondent contended that there was negligence on the part of the appellant, as they did not report compliance in time or have any representation on the hearing date.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the delay in filing the application for restoration, which was submitted after five years from the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant was deemed negligent and careless for not tracing the record or appearing before the Tribunal, leading to a lack of sympathy for their situation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance and diligence in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the interim order and appear before the Tribunal, coupled with the lack of satisfactory reasons for the delay in seeking restoration. The judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance and active participation in legal proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes.