2004 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal based on deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Compliance with stay order and subsequent legal challenges.
3. Financial hardship as a reason for non-compliance.
4. Delay in compliance and time limitations for restoration applications.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought restoration of the appeal after depositing Rs. 22 lakhs as duty and Rs. 2,50,000 as penalty, as per the stay order by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the applicant had previously challenged the stay order up to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully, questioning the allowance of the restoration application.

2. Despite failing to comply with the stay order conditions, the applicant challenged the Tribunal's decision in the High Court and Supreme Court, both dismissing the appeals. Subsequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal for restoration without depositing the duty, which was also rejected. However, the applicant later deposited the full amount in cash. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal considered the delay in compliance and the primary function of courts to advance substantial justice.

3. The appellant argued financial hardship as the reason for non-compliance, referencing Supreme Court cases supporting leniency in such situations. The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Act does not specify a time limit for filing restoration applications, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.

4. Acknowledging the delay in compliance, the Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal highlighted that the judiciary's role is to remove injustice and not legalize it on technical grounds. Consequently, considering the appellant's deposit of the required amount and the financial hardship faced, the Tribunal recalled the final order dismissing the appeal and restored it to its original status for further arguments.