2010 (6) TMI 706 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of Appeal for non-compliance of Stay-Order.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application for Restoration of Appeal after their appeal was dismissed for not complying with the Stay-Order, which required a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 within a specified time frame. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant claimed that the amount was deposited late due to a mistake by their Counsel's clerk, who failed to inform the Counsel promptly. The application for Restoration of Appeal was filed after this delay was discovered. The applicant argued that the delay was unintentional and should be overlooked considering the merits of the case.

The Advocate for the applicant contended that the delay in compliance was due to the late deposit of the amount and the mistake made by the Counsel's clerk. The applicant had a strong case on merits, and the delay should be disregarded. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the delay was significant, citing precedents where appeals were not restored in similar situations. The Department relied on cases where appeals were not restored without a sufficient cause for the delay.

Upon hearing both sides, the Judge noted that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order to make the deposit within the specified time frame, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Judge emphasized that no request for modification of the stay order or extension of time was made. The applicant deposited the amount late and only inquired about the status of the Restoration of Appeal application when prompted by the Department's actions. Citing legal precedents, the Judge highlighted the necessity for timely filing of appeals and applications for restoration. The Judge found no merit in the applicant's plea for Restoration of Appeal and rejected the application based on the principles established in the cited case laws.

In conclusion, the application for Restoration of Appeal was rejected by the Tribunal due to the applicant's failure to comply with the Stay-Order within the specified time frame and the absence of a sufficient cause for the delay in depositing the required amount. The Judge emphasized the importance of timely compliance with statutory orders and the need for valid reasons when seeking restoration of dismissed appeals.