2010 (10) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration - Appeals, which were dismissed for non-compliance - Submission that the challans, which indicate the payment of pre-deposit, does not indicate the name of the current applicants but, indicates the name of the assessee as Handum Industries Ltd., the main appellant - The applicants are Managing Director/employees of the main appellant and there is no reason for taking any objection for deposit by the company against the said employees - As regards the deposit made on behalf of other company ,find that it could be possible that M/s. Handum Industries Ltd., in order to prosecute the appeal filed by other company, had paid the amount on their behalf - Find that though the pre-deposit ordered was deposited after considerable time, in any case, there is a compliance of the order of pre-deposit of the amounts - Hence, applications for restoration of appeals need to be allowed.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance, validity of deposit made by applicants, consideration of deposit made on behalf of another company, delay in depositing the pre-deposit amounts.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with four applications for the restoration of appeals that were dismissed for non-compliance with Final Order Nos. 615-622 dated 1-3-2010. The appellants were directed to deposit 10% of the penalties imposed for hearing the appeals. One of the main appellants had moved the High Court and complied with the directed deposit, resulting in the restoration of their appeal. The applicants in question had not moved the High Court but had now deposited the amounts as directed by the Bench, seeking restoration of their appeals.

The Respondent objected to the restoration, arguing that the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance and that the deposit made by the main appellant should not be considered as compliance by the current applicants. The challans indicated the payment by the main appellant, Handum Industries Ltd., not the current applicants. The Respondent contended that the amounts deposited should be considered as compliance by the main appellant, not the applicants seeking restoration.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the applicants were Managing Director/employees of the main appellant, justifying the deposit by the company on their behalf. Regarding the deposit made on behalf of another company, Sujana Universal Industries Ltd., it was considered that Handum Industries Ltd. might have paid on their behalf. The Tribunal noted the delay in depositing the pre-deposit amounts but concluded that there was compliance with the order. As a result, all four applications for restoration of appeals were allowed, and the appeals were restored to their original numbers, to be listed with the appeal of the main appellant, Handum Industries Ltd.