2014 (5) TMI 1049 - AT - Service Tax

Recall of order - Order dismissing appeal for non compliance - Held that - While passing stay order 2012 (6) TMI 582 - CESTAT NEW DELHI bench has appreciated that the case of the appellant is covered by the out decision of the Tribunal as reported above and that is against the appellant. Therefore when appeal was found to be devoid of merit and there is direction for deposit of entire Service Tax demand multiple restoration applications filed by appellant is merely to perpetuate litigation causing unwarranted hardship to other side. This also throws light that the appellant is only avoiding its liability imposed under law. It would therefore be mockery if present applications are not dismissed. Accordingly to prevent further abuse of process of law all the present miscellaneous applications are dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with stay order
2. Restoration applications dismissed for abuse of process of law
3. Miscellaneous applications to recall the order of dismissal

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order, which required the deposit of the entire Service Tax demand within a specified period. Despite being granted waiver of penalty and interest subject to deposit, the appellant failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of all 19 appeals on the specified date for compliance. The appellant later sought restoration of the appeals, but due to continued absence and the perception of abuse of process of law, all restoration applications were also dismissed.

2. The subsequent miscellaneous applications were filed to recall the order of dismissal of restoration applications. However, the appellant's repeated defaults in appearing before the Tribunal and the perception of scant regard for the law led to the conclusion that the appellant was abusing the legal process, causing prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions were aimed at perpetuating litigation and avoiding liability imposed by law, leading to the dismissal of all present miscellaneous applications to prevent further abuse of the legal process.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's behavior amounted to a mockery of the legal system and highlighted the need to prevent such abuse. The order dated 4-6-2012, which dismissed the appeals, was upheld, allowing the Revenue to pursue the recovery of its dues through legal means. The Tribunal also directed the Registry to note the multiple dismissals of restoration applications to avoid further unnecessary proceedings.

4. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where the abuse of the legal process was not entertained by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system. The judgment serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to comply with legal obligations and the potential repercussions of attempting to circumvent them.