9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 701 - HC - Central ExciseDismissal of restoration application by the CESTAT - non-compliance with the directions contained in the stay order - Held that - the appellant had not taken due steps to prosecute the appeal after it was dismissed for default, such situation was also during the period while the company was before the BIFR. As of now, the company has been given a revival package as approved by BIFR. This means that every little opportunity and support that could be extended to the company to make it revive have to be permitted to flow through whatever system that it can take in. We, therefore, are of the view that the learned Tribunal, on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have considered the case as one where imposition of costs would have been sufficient to grant restoration of the appeal to file, particularly when the condition imposed, that is to say, deposit of ₹ 10,00,000/- was also complied with. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues: Appeal against dismissal of restoration application by CESTAT.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by a company against the dismissal of their restoration application by the CESTAT. The company had earlier filed a waiver application and a stay application, which were granted on the condition that they deposit a certain amount. However, since the company failed to make the deposit, the appeal was dismissed in 2007. 2. The Tribunal had the power to restore the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the directions in the stay order. The Court acknowledged that the company had not taken proper steps to prosecute the appeal after it was dismissed for default, but noted that during that period, the company was before the BIFR. The company had been given a revival package approved by BIFR, indicating the need to extend every possible opportunity and support for the company's revival. 3. The Court opined that imposition of costs would have been sufficient to grant restoration of the appeal, especially when the condition of depositing a certain amount was also complied with. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders, and directed the appellant to pay a specified amount towards costs within a given timeframe. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the appeal on merits promptly after the payment of costs. 4. The judgment concluded by instructing the communication of a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal for further action.
|
