2011 (3) TMI 1573 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Application for further indulgence and restoration of dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with previous court order.

The judgment pertains to an application for further indulgence and restoration of dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with a previous court order. The applicants failed to adhere to the conditional order dated 24-6-2008, which required them to deposit a specified amount in installments. Despite making partial payments, the applicants did not fulfill the conditions set by the court. The applicants then sought fresh indulgence through another application, which was rejected by the Division Bench. Subsequently, the present application was made to practically reverse the previous order dated 24-6-2008.

In the arguments presented for further indulgence, it was emphasized that the applicants did not claim relief as a matter of right but requested the court to consider the payments already made and the need to hear the appeals on merits. Reference was made to previous court orders condoning delays in deposits and granting relief based on financial difficulties faced by the parties. The applicants' counsel relied on legal precedents to support the request for fresh indulgence, highlighting the need to consider the circumstances of the case.

On the other hand, the opponents vehemently opposed granting any relief or further indulgence to the applicants. They argued that the alleged financial difficulties of the applicants were not substantiated and that the delay in approaching the court for modification of the order was unjustified. The opponents pointed out the substantial amount due as per the Order-in-Original and criticized the applicants for delayed actions and insufficient payments. It was emphasized that the small installments made by the applicants were inadequate compared to the total amount owed.

Considering the facts and the applicants' non-compliance with the previous court order, the court was not inclined to grant relief. However, acknowledging the offer made by the applicants' counsel to abide by imposed conditions, the court partly allowed the application. The court ordered the applicants to deposit the total outstanding amount by a specified date and upon proof of deposit, the appeals would be restored for expeditious hearing on merits. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in the restoration of the original orders mentioned in the previous order. The application was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.