2005 (1) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders; Tribunal's power to restore appeals; delay in making pre-deposit; financial difficulties as a reason for non-compliance; department's inability to recover amounts; conflicting orders on pre-deposit conditions; consideration of case laws supporting restoration; restoration of appeals and remand to lower authority for decision on merits.

Analysis:
The case involved a miscellaneous application for restoration of five appeals that were dismissed due to non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The appellants failed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 Lakhs within the specified time frame due to financial difficulties. The advocate representing the appellants argued that subsequent pre-deposits were made and that the appeals should be restored based on merits, citing relevant case laws in support. On the other hand, the department argued against restoration, citing instances where restoration was not allowed due to delay in pre-deposit.

The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the case records, including cited case laws. It was noted that there were no absolute guidelines available from previous cases regarding restoration after delayed pre-deposit. The Tribunal found that each case of delayed pre-deposit should be considered on its merits. The appellants' claim of financial instability was supported by the department's inability to recover the amounts during the period between dismissal and subsequent pre-deposit.

The Tribunal also analyzed a previous Bench order that initially waived the pre-deposit but later imposed a pre-condition for remand, which was deemed contradictory. Considering the financial position of the appellants and the lack of recovery by the department, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the appeals, condoning the delay in pre-deposit. The impugned orders were set aside, and the lower authority was directed to decide the matter afresh without insisting on further pre-deposit, allowing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard.

In conclusion, all five appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision on merits by the lower authority without additional pre-deposit requirements.