2009 (8) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Adjournment request by the Appellant; Non-compliance with deposit orders leading to dismissal of appeal.

Adjournment Request: The Appellate Tribunal noted the application seeking adjournment but proceeded to decide the matter after rejecting the request, as only a narrow compass issue was fixed for the day. The appellant had a history of filing multiple modification applications and ROA applications related to the deposit conditions set by previous orders.

Non-compliance with Deposit Orders: The appellants were directed to deposit a specific amount as a condition for hearing their appeal. Despite filing modification applications and expressing willingness to deposit the amount, the actual deposit was not made within the stipulated time frames. The Tribunal emphasized that repeated ROA applications would not assist the appellant, as non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders typically results in dismissal of appeals. Even after leniency shown by extending deadlines, the appellant failed to comply with the deposit orders over a period of three years, leading to the rejection of the current ROA application and the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the ROA application due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance with deposit orders and failure to adhere to previous directives despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of complying with its orders and the consequences of continued non-compliance, ultimately upholding the dismissal of the appeal in light of the appellant's actions.