2011 (8) TMI 985 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of application - Pre deposit order not complied - Bar of limitation - whether the appeal can be restored when pre-deposit of amount required to be deposited as per Stay Order has not been deposited by filing application for restoration and further whether such restoration application can be filed without any time-limit - Held that - appellant was required to deposit amount and report compliance in 5-10-2007 and appeal was dismissed for non-compliance on 5-11-2007. Restoration application was filed on 25-5-2008. Therefore, it can be seen that restoration application in that case had been filed after about 8 months. In this case, restoration application is being filed after 5 years. When there is a decision of the Tribunal refusing to allow restoration application filed after 8 months in the case of Kiritkumar J. Shah v. CCE, Nagpur 2009 (5) TMI 86 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , such a decision is bound to be followed unless distinguishable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal without pre-deposit of required amount.
2. Time limit for filing restoration application.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were directed to deposit 50% of the duty but failed to do so, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's consultant argued for restoration citing financial crisis and merit of the case. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of pre-deposit before restoration of appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where restoration application filed after 8 months was rejected, setting a precedent for timely filings. In this case, the restoration application was filed after 5 years, leading to its dismissal due to lack of merit and non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

2. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of adhering to a reasonable time limit for filing restoration applications. Citing a specific case, it was noted that restoration applications should ideally be submitted within 3 months from the date of dismissal. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case where an application was rejected for being filed after 8 months served as a guiding principle. In the current case, with the restoration application filed after 5 years, the Tribunal found no merit and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements.

This judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance with pre-deposit requirements and restoration application filings in appeals before the Tribunal. Failure to adhere to these procedural aspects can result in dismissal of appeals, as demonstrated by the Tribunal's decision in this case.