2012 (11) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of applications Impact of order of BIFR on order of CESTAT directing to make pre-deposit - BIFR passed the order on reference under Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Held that - BIFR is not an appellate authority - direction contained in the said order are beyond their jurisdiction and power - CESTAT is not bound to follow the same - deposit stands made by the appellants after a gap of five years - From the date of passing the stay order, no efforts made to deposit any amount or to make restoration application so as to keep their interest alive - no justifiable reasons to recall the order of the dismissal

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to deposit directed amount leading to dismissal of appeals.
2. Restoration applications filed after a significant delay.
3. Dispute over BIFR's direction to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs.
4. Lack of challenge to Tribunal's orders before higher appellate forum.

Issue 1 - Failure to Deposit Directed Amount:
The Tribunal had directed M/s. Global Syntex (BHL) Ltd. to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs out of a total confirmed demand within eight weeks. Non-compliance led to the dismissal of their appeals through Final Order Nos. 620-626/05-NB-A dated 13-5-05.

Issue 2 - Restoration Applications Filed After Delay:
After the dismissal of appeals, the appellants neither deposited the amount nor filed restoration applications until 30-8-10. They later claimed to have deposited the directed amount on 25-6-10 after five years, citing an order by BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies Act.

Issue 3 - Dispute Over BIFR's Direction:
The appellants argued that they deposited Rs. 25 lakhs based on BIFR's direction, emphasizing the BIFR's order to consider hearing the appeal upon this deposit. The Revenue countered, asserting that BIFR's directions were beyond its jurisdiction and not binding on the Tribunal.

Issue 4 - Lack of Challenge to Tribunal's Orders:
The Tribunal noted that the BIFR's order was not challenged before it, and BIFR is not an appellate authority over the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to recall the dismissal order, as the appellants made no efforts to deposit any amount or file restoration applications in the five-year gap.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the restoration applications, emphasizing that the BIFR's directions were beyond its jurisdiction, and the appellants failed to challenge the Tribunal's orders before any higher appellate forum. The delay in depositing the directed amount and lack of proactive measures by the appellants contributed to the dismissal of their appeals.