9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 251 - AT - Service TaxApplication for Restoration of Appeals - Appellant did not ask for any extension of time or modification of stay order after the stay order was passed - Appellant was sitting quiet on the order of pre-deposit - On the date of compliance also neither the order was complied nor any body represented the appellant - It had been rightly pointed out by the A.R. appearing for Revenue that more than one year had passed from the stay order and if the appellant was sincere then he should have made the entire pre-deposit in instalments himself and could have come with a stronger case for restoration of his appeals - the right course for the appellant would have been to file an appeal against the dismissal order passed by CESTAT which was correctly passed in view of the law laid down by Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court in the case of Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI 1989 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD and Hanila Era Textiles Ltd vs. UOI - 2010 (9) TMI 202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - application for Restoration of Appeals filed by the appellant was rejected.
Issues:
Restoration of two appeals dismissed for non-compliance of stay order. Analysis: The appellant filed a restoration application seeking to reinstate two appeals, ST/175 and 176 of 2011, which were dismissed by CESTAT for failing to comply with a stay order. The stay order required the appellant to deposit specific amounts within eight weeks, which the appellant did not fulfill, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. The appellant, represented by Shri Rahul Gajera, argued that they were a small Security Agency currently closed and unable to pay the ordered amounts in full. They claimed to have made partial payments on specific dates and requested more time or issuance of a show cause notice before the dismissal of their appeals. The appellant cited case laws like Kamla Devi vs. CCE, Bangalore and CCE Kolkata-II vs. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Limited to support their argument. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Kutty, representing the Revenue, contended that a considerable time had passed since the dismissal of the appeals, and if the appellant was genuinely willing to comply, they could have paid the entire pre-deposit amount to strengthen their case for restoration. Kutty relied on case laws like Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI and Hanila Era Textiles Ltd vs. UOI to justify the correct dismissal of the appeals due to non-compliance. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the judge noted the appellant's reliance on the judgment of the Kolkata High Court and the Gujarat High Court in similar cases. The judge emphasized that the appellant had ample time to make the required deposits or seek modifications/extensions but failed to do so. The judge highlighted the importance of timely compliance with pre-deposit orders and cited the judgments in Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI and Hanila Era Textiles Limited vs. UOI, which upheld dismissals for non-compliance. The judge concluded that the appellant's failure to request an extension or modification of the stay order, coupled with the passage of significant time without compliance, justified the dismissal of the restoration application. In light of the observations made and the legal precedents cited, the judge rejected the application for Restoration of Appeals filed by the appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in court, bringing closure to the matter.
|
