2010 (2) TMI 999 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal based on delayed compliance with pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was dismissed on 16-9-2008 due to the appellant company's failure to deposit the entire amount within the specified time. The appellant subsequently deposited the required amount in compliance with the stay order and filed an application for restoration of the appeal. The advocate for the appellant highlighted that the Directors had already restored their appeals and deposited the amount as per the stay order. The advocate argued that the appellants should be given an opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the delayed deposit by the appellants did not entitle them to restoration of the appeal, as compliance with the stay order conditions was not met within the stipulated period. However, the Tribunal considered the specific circumstances of the case. Despite acknowledging that delayed deposit alone does not warrant restoration, the Tribunal noted that the Directors' appeals had been restored, and they had complied with the deposit requirement within the specified time. The Tribunal also took into account the difficulties faced by the company in making the deposit within the deadline and the failure of the company's representative to inform the Tribunal about the deposit on the day of dismissal.

In light of these factors, the Tribunal deemed this a suitable case for recalling the order dated 16-9-2008 and restoring the appeal. Consequently, the application for restoration was allowed, the order dated 16-9-2008 was recalled, and the appeal (No. 968 of 2008) was restored. The appeal was directed to be listed for hearing along with other related appeals (Nos. 969, 970, and 971 of 2008). The application was disposed of accordingly.