2015 (12) TMI 534 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance with pre deposit order - Held that - Predeposit direction made on 8.6.2012 not being carried out in accordance with law by appellant nor the appellant appeared on 30.7.2012 to explain the position of default of compliance to the Bench, appeal was dismissed. After one year, the restoration application came to record of Tribunal. Even on the date of filing of restoration application, the appellant had not at all paid the directed amount of predeposit in accordance with law - default as handicaps the Tribunal to consider restoration application which was more than one year old from the stay order and also one year old from the date of dismissal order. Restoration of appeal in spite of defiant attitude of appellant shall cause prejudice to the interest of Revenue. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with predeposit order and subsequent appeal dismissal.
2. Filing of restoration application after dismissal.
3. Change of appellant's name and its impact on the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant failed to comply with the predeposit order issued on 8.6.2012, despite making partial payments from the cenvat account and then the PLA account under incorrect advice. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not report compliance to the Tribunal, leading to subsequent applications for restoration being filed and dismissed due to non-prosecution. The appellant later realized the error and made a cash deposit under the Customs Code on 28.2.2014, acknowledging the non-compliance with the predeposit order.

2. The Tribunal found that the appellant's delay in seeking restoration, more than a year after the compliance date and appeal dismissal, hindered the consideration of the restoration application. The failure to pay the directed predeposit amount in a timely manner and the lack of explanation for non-compliance further weakened the appellant's case for restoration. The Tribunal concluded that granting restoration after such prolonged non-compliance would prejudice the interests of the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the restoration application.

3. Additionally, the change in the appellant's name from M/s. JKM Daerim Automotive Ltd. to M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. was noted. However, due to the dismissal of the appeal and subsequent dismissal of the restoration application, the Tribunal deemed it impractical to entertain the application for a change of title at that stage, resulting in the dismissal of the same.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application due to the appellant's prolonged non-compliance with the predeposit order and failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay. The change of appellant's name was also dismissed for practical reasons following the dismissal of the appeal.