1999 (3) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal based on financial hardship plea not raised earlier.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal seeking restoration based on a financial hardship plea not raised during the original stay petition. The appellants, represented by an advocate, argued that due to inadvertent reasons, they could not present their financial hardship at the time of filing the original stay petition. They referred to a High Court order allowing them to raise contentions not previously presented. The advocate emphasized the financial difficulties faced by the appellants, stating that their unit had been closed since 1991, and their financial condition was dire. The appellants sought restoration of their appeal based on the newly raised financial hardship plea.

Opposition and Merits:
The respondent, represented by an SDR, opposed the restoration, arguing that the financial hardship plea was not raised initially. Referring to the stay order, the respondent highlighted the non-compliance with the deposit directive, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The SDR cited a Tribunal order stating that restoration could only occur upon full penalty deposit. Additionally, the SDR mentioned a previous Tribunal order where financial hardship was not considered during the stay order. The respondent contended that the appellants had already been given an opportunity to raise the financial hardship plea, and no further chances should be granted.

Judgment:
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal observed that the financial hardship plea was not raised during the original stay petition due to the belief in the appeal's success based on prima facie merits. Citing a High Court judgment in a similar case, the Tribunal noted the discretionary power to consider waiver of pre-deposit. In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal granted the restoration of the appeal, emphasizing the peculiar situation and the need to serve justice. The Tribunal allowed the ROA application, restoring the appeal without expressing any opinion on the case's merits or other grounds that may be raised in support of the stay petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the restoration of the appeal based on the newly presented financial hardship plea, considering the peculiar circumstances and the ends of justice. The case highlights the importance of raising all relevant pleas at the appropriate stages of legal proceedings and the discretionary power of the Tribunal to consider waiver requests based on financial difficulties.