2018 (8) TMI 1998 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - failure to make payment of pre-deposit - non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - As the main party failed to make pre-deposit as directed by this Tribunal or by the Hon ble Apex Court, the appeal for the applicants were dismissed by this Tribunal. In fact, the stay order for waiver of pre-deposit and directions to make pre-deposit were against the main applicant i.e. M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. and on the compliance by M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. the applicant could have enjoyed the waiver of pre-deposit but as M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. could not make pre-deposit, in that circumstance, the applicants should not suffer, therefore, as the applications for stay of the appellants have not been decided on merits by this Tribunal. The order of dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 are recalled and the appeals are restored to their original no. with the direction to the registry - the applications for restoration of appeal are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing applications for restoration of appeal; Restoration of appeal based on non-compliance of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Condonation of Delay:
The applicants filed applications for condonation of delay in filing for restoration of appeal. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay and found them satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the delay was condoned, allowing the application for restoration of appeal.

Non-Compliance of Section 35F - Restoration of Appeal:
The main company, M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., failed to make the pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Apex Court. As a result, the appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the stay order for waiver of pre-deposit and directions to make pre-deposit were against M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. Since M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. did not make the pre-deposit, the applicants should not suffer. The Tribunal recalled the order of dismissal and restored the appeals to their original number. The registry was directed to fix a date for hearing the applications for stay filed by the applicants on merits. The restoration of appeal was allowed based on these considerations.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with pre-deposit requirements and the impact of non-compliance on related appeals. It also underscores the Tribunal's discretion in condoning delays based on satisfactory explanations provided.