2013 (12) TMI 1514 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - sale or auction of property - pre-deposit - compliance - this is the second set of applications filed by the applicant for restoration of appeals. In the first set of applications, the very same plea was taken before the Bench and, after considering the very same arguments, which are made today, the Bench was pleased to dismiss the said applications due to loss of considerable time in moving of applications for restoration of appeals, even if the Revenue authorities have attached the property and held that it would not satisfy the condition of stay order passed by the Bench. Held that - In the current set of applications which are moved and prosecuted, we find there is no change in situation which warrants our further consideration. Added to that, it is also informed by the learned departmental representative that Revenue authorities have already appointed an auctioneer for auctioning the said property - no merit found for restoration of appeal - application dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance
- Appellant's property attached by Revenue authorities
- Request to sell property to adjust pre-deposit
- Previous applications for restoration dismissed
- Appointment of auctioneer by Revenue authorities

Analysis:
The judgment deals with two stay applications filed for the restoration of appeals that were dismissed by the Bench for non-compliance. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the applications were filed to restore the appeals as the appellant's property was attached by the Revenue authorities, and they had requested the authorities to sell the property to adjust the proceeds towards the pre-deposit ordered by the Bench. On the other hand, the departmental representative informed that the department had already taken action to appoint an auctioneer to auction the attached property.

The Bench noted that this was the second set of applications filed by the appellant for restoration of appeals. In the previous set of applications, the same plea was made, and those applications were dismissed due to the loss of considerable time in moving for restoration, even with the property attachment. The Bench had held that the attachment of the property did not satisfy the conditions of the stay order. The current applications did not present any new circumstances warranting further consideration. Additionally, it was confirmed that the Revenue authorities had appointed an auctioneer for the property auction.

Based on the above, the Bench found no merit in the applications for restoration of appeals and consequently dismissed both applications. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with orders and the need for significant changes in circumstances to warrant reconsideration of restoration applications.