2020 (5) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Restoration of mistake - recall of the order - HELD THAT - In the order dated 04.12.2013 while disposing the stay application filed by the various appellants including the present appellant, this Tribunal directed pre-deposit 10% of the penalty imposed on each of them. Thereafter, time and again, the appellant filed modification applications repeating the same grounds of financial difficulty. Each of the said modification application had been rejected on merit by this Tribunal. Also, while rejecting the respective modification applications, extension of time of deposit was granted to the appellant for compliance of the stay order. Instead of complying with the directions, the appellant indulged on dilatery tactics to avoid the deposit of the directed amount by filing modification applications time and again repeating the same grounds. The last of the modification application, the subject matter of the present ROM application, was dismissed for non-prosecution; but in the interest of justice, later restored, The appellant though did not appear on 05.06.2018, but it was again considered on merit and dismissed. There are no merit in the present application seeking recall of the order dated 05.06.2018 and to hear the appellant again. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of Miscellaneous Order
2. Compliance with stay order
3. Financial difficulty and sickness as grounds for non-compliance

Issue 1: Restoration of Miscellaneous Order
The appellant filed a ROM application seeking restoration of Miscellaneous Order No. M/876329/2018 dated 05.06.2018. The history of the case revealed multiple modification applications filed by the appellant, each seeking an extension of time to comply with the stay order. Despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to make the directed deposit. The Tribunal considered the grounds put forth by the appellant for restoration but found no merit in recalling the order dated 05.06.2018. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's financial difficulty and sickness claims had been previously considered and rejected in the modification applications. The ROM application was ultimately dismissed.

Issue 2: Compliance with stay order
The Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit 10% of the penalty imposed within a specified period in the stay order dated 04.12.2013. However, the appellant continuously filed modification applications citing financial difficulties as reasons for non-compliance. Despite being granted extensions each time, the appellant failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions. The Revenue argued that the appellant's actions were dilatory tactics to avoid complying with the stay order, which adversely affected the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the pre-deposit directions and ultimately dismissed the appellant's application for restoration.

Issue 3: Financial difficulty and sickness as grounds for non-compliance
The authorized representative of the appellant, Ms. Aruna Rathi, highlighted the appellant's chronic illness and financial constraints as reasons for non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. However, the Revenue contended that such claims were repetitive and aimed at delaying compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions but noted that similar grounds had been previously considered and rejected. Despite Ms. Aruna Rathi's detailed plea on behalf of the appellant during the hearing, the Tribunal found no justification to recall the order dated 05.06.2018 based on the grounds of financial difficulty and sickness. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely compliance with its directives to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding each aspect of the case.