2014 (1) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of Appeal Non-compliance of Section 35F of Central Excise Act Pre-deposits not made Held that - Earlier the appellant deposited Rupees ten lakhs as pre-deposits but could not comply with the order n full but later on the appellant had deposited the balance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs on 05.02.2013 as evidenced by the documents there is a delay on the part of the appellant in depositing the balance amount - the appellant has satisfactorily explained the cause of the delay Application allowed by ordering recall of order Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2. Request for restoration of the appeal due to delayed pre-deposit of required amount.
3. Financial hardships as a ground for seeking modification of the Stay Order.
4. Delay in depositing the balance amount after the prescribed time.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as they could only pre-deposit Rs. 10 lakhs out of the required Rs. 30 lakhs within the stipulated period. Despite seeking modification of the Stay Order due to financial hardships, the bench did not grant it initially. However, additional time was given for pre-deposit, which the appellant failed to comply with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant later deposited the balance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, albeit after the prescribed time had lapsed. The delay in depositing the balance amount was explained by the appellant's counsel satisfactorily. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and allowed the application for restoration of the appeal, recalling the previous order and reinstating the appeal to its original number.

3. The Tribunal noted the due compliance with the Stay Order and reinstated the stay of recovery as ordered initially. It was clarified that the recovery of the balance amount would remain stayed until the final disposal of the appeal, ensuring that the appellant's financial situation was taken into account while the appeal proceedings continued.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the consideration of financial hardships in legal proceedings, and the Tribunal's discretion in allowing the restoration of appeals based on justifiable reasons and explanations for delays in compliance.