2019 (1) TMI 905 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - condonation of delay - appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit - Held that - The appellants appeal was disposed of in the year 2006 directing them to deposit an amount of ₹ 15 lakh within a period of 8 weeks. Instead of depositing the said amount, the appellant kept silent. It was further noticed that if the appellants were not in a position to deposit the amount in question, they should have approached the Tribunal at that point of time only seeking further extension of time to deposit the amount or they could have challenged the said order before the higher forum. It cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the appellant to deposit the amount as and when they wish. The appellants having not taken any further steps to challenge the said order of the Tribunal, the same has attained finality. The deposit of the amount in question after a period of 12 years cannot revive the assessee s right to get the matter afresh either before the Tribunal or before the Commissioner (Appeals). Application for restoration of appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal application
2. Condonation of delay application

Restoration of appeal application:
The appellant filed Misc applications seeking restoration of appeal and condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty for the appeal to be heard. The Tribunal's Final Order directed the appellant to deposit ?15 lakh within 8 weeks and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further action. However, the Commissioner had not taken any action on the matter. The appellant deposited the amount after 12 years, beyond the stipulated time. The Tribunal found no justification for restoring the appeal as it had already been disposed of and decided on merits. The appeal was not dismissed for any technical reason, and hence, restoration was deemed unnecessary.

Condonation of delay application:
The appellant argued that financial constraints led to the delay in depositing the directed amount, which was finally done after 12 years. They sought condonation of the delay, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Revenue contended that the long delay amounted to contempt of the Tribunal's order and could not be condoned. They referenced a High Court decision setting aside a similar order that condoned a 4-year delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to take timely action to challenge the order or seek an extension for depositing the amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's inaction led to the finality of the order, and depositing the amount after 12 years did not revive their right to challenge the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected both applications, emphasizing the importance of complying with directed timelines and taking appropriate legal steps in a timely manner.