9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 992 - AT - Service TaxRestoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed non-compliance of the pre-deposit order - Held that - due to absence on the part of the appellant as well as non-compliance of pre-deposit, the appeal was dismissed on 26.11.2015, for non-compliance of pre-deposit order - Today also the appellant has no case that they have complied with the pre-deposit order - application for restoration of appeal is dismissed.
Issues: Restoration of appeal due to non-compliance of pre-deposit order.
Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an application for restoration of appeal due to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The appellant, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, stated that financial hardships prevented compliance with the pre-deposit order of ?2,00,000. The appellant paid ?70,000 towards pre-deposit and argued for restoration based on the merits of the case and financial difficulties faced. 2. The respondent, represented by the JC, strongly opposed the restoration application. It was highlighted that the Tribunal had directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit order of ?2,00,000 within a specified time frame. Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, the appellant failed to comply. The respondent emphasized that the appellant only made a partial pre-deposit of ?70,000 and had not deposited the full amount as required by the Tribunal. 3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal reviewed the records and submissions. It was noted that the appellant had ample opportunities to comply with the pre-deposit order but failed to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was dismissed on 26.11.2015 due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The appellant had not challenged the pre-deposit order before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the dismissal order and dismissed the restoration application. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The application for restoration was denied based on the appellant's failure to adhere to the Tribunal's directives despite multiple opportunities provided. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of compliance with the pre-deposit order and the absence of any valid grounds for restoration.
|
