2019 (8) TMI 681 - AT - FEMA

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed on time limitation as well as for non-compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT - That Delhi High Court s order, clearly mentions only two appeals i.e. 475 and 543 of 2004 of having being remanded to the AT. There is no such order with regard to the other two appeals i.e. 473 and 488 of 2003 and hence it was legally required for the appellants to have filed, if they so desired, a proper restoration of appeal applications with valid grounds and reasons. As discussed above, they have failed to do so either in their applications or during the hearing - the restoration of appeals applications in appeal No. 473 488 of 2003 is dismissed as rejected as is without any grounds and substance. Other two appeals i.e. 475 543 of 2004 which has been remanded by the Hon ble Delhi High Court - HELD THAT - The final hearing was commenced on 11.04.2019, adjourned and treated as part heard to 11.07.2019 at the request of one of the appellants and again adjourned and treated as part heard to 26.07.2019 at the request of the other appellant. However, again on 26.07.2019, there was a request for adjournment by one of the appellants - appeals were released from part heard and is now listed to be heard afresh on 25th October, 2019.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal on grounds of limitation and non-compliance with pre-deposit order
- Remand of certain appeals by the Delhi High Court for fresh decision
- Restoration of appeals applications for two appeals
- Legal requirement for filing restoration of appeal applications with valid grounds
- Dismissal of restoration of appeals applications for lack of grounds and substance
- Continuation of final hearing for remanded appeals

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal dismissed four appeals against the adjudication order due to limitation and non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court remanded two appeals for a fresh decision on the consequences of failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount and on the merits of the appeals. However, the other two appeals did not receive such a remand order, making the Tribunal's order final for those appeals.

2. The appellants filed restoration of appeals (ROA) applications for the two appeals without providing valid grounds or reasons. During the hearing, the appellants argued against the need for ROA, claiming the matter should be heard afresh based on the Delhi High Court order. The lack of reasons for restoration and the contradictory stance of the appellants indicated a casual approach towards legal procedures.

3. The respondent opposed the ROA applications, emphasizing that the Delhi High Court did not remand the two appeals in question. The absence of valid grounds for restoration after the detailed dismissal by the Tribunal further weakened the appellants' case for restoration.

4. Upon examination of the ROA applications and submissions, it was evident that the Delhi High Court's remand order only pertained to two specific appeals, not including the other two. The appellants failed to provide valid grounds for restoration, both in their applications and during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the restoration of appeals applications.

5. Consequently, the restoration of appeals applications for the two appeals was dismissed due to the lack of grounds and substance, as highlighted by the failure to comply with the legal requirements for restoration.

6. For the appeals remanded by the Delhi High Court, the final hearing was scheduled but faced multiple adjournments at the appellants' requests. The appeals were released from being part heard and listed for a fresh hearing on a later date to ensure a fair and complete consideration of the case.

7. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the restoration of appeals applications and proceed with the final hearing for the remanded appeals reflects a commitment to upholding legal procedures and ensuring a thorough examination of the matters at hand.