2015 (7) TMI 1182 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - The said order was passed on 30.4.2015 and a period of 8 weeks time was given to the appellant for depositing the dues in question. Neither the dues stand deposited nor any application for recalling of the said ex parte order stands filed by the assessee within a period of more than 2 months. As such, the prayer of the learned advocate to adjourn the matter to a further date so as to enable them to file an application cannot be appreciated and accepted. Learned advocate has not been able to give any valid reason for not taking the action during the intervening period

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with stay order, application for recalling the stay order, delay tactics by the appellant

Non-compliance with stay order:
The judgment revolves around the appellant's failure to comply with a stay order issued on 30.4.2015, directing them to deposit the entire dues within 8 weeks. Despite the lapse of more than 2 months, neither the dues were deposited nor an application for recalling the order was filed by the appellant. The learned advocate's request for an adjournment to file an application was deemed unjustified as no valid reason was provided for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.

Application for recalling the stay order:
During the proceedings, the advocate representing the appellant sought time to file a miscellaneous application for recalling the stay order, which had been dismissed earlier due to non-prosecution by the appellant. The advocate's request for an adjournment to submit the application was met with opposition from the Revenue's representative, who argued that it was a tactic to further delay the proceedings. The tribunal found the appellant's conduct indicative of a lack of interest in resolving the matter promptly and dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the stay order.

Delay tactics by the appellant:
The judgment highlights the tribunal's observation that the appellant's actions, including repeated non-attendance at previous hearings and failure to comply with the stay order within the stipulated timeframe, suggested a deliberate attempt to prolong the proceedings. The tribunal, noting the lack of justification for the delay in depositing the dues or filing a recalling application, rejected the advocate's plea for an extension and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. This decision underscores the tribunal's commitment to ensuring timely compliance with orders and discouraging tactics aimed at delaying the resolution of legal matters.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to court orders, timely compliance with legal directives, and the consequences of employing delay tactics in legal proceedings.