2012 (10) TMI 228 - HC - Central Excise

Application for restoration of appeal Held that - Petitioner had merely stated in the application that the petitioner could not deposit the amount in time due to financial difficulty - appeal was filed in the year 2004 and the same was not prosecuted diligently by the petitioner, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as there was absence of sufficient cause in not depositing the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- before the Tribunal in terms of the orders dated 18-5-2007 and 20-8-2007 - in the absence of the reasons for belatedly filing the application, the application was liable to be dismissed appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Impugning order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for dismissing appeal and subsequent restoration application.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal in 2004, which was initially dismissed but later restored. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit a specific amount by certain dates. Despite modifications in the deposit amount and extensions granted, the petitioner failed to comply fully. When the matter came up for hearing in 2007, the petitioner did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner's application for restoration was also dismissed earlier. The current application for restoration was filed after a significant delay without providing sufficient reasons for the delay. The Tribunal found that the petitioner did not diligently prosecute the appeal and failed to show sufficient cause for not complying with the deposit orders. The Tribunal rightly observed that the application should have been filed within a reasonable time from the dismissal of the appeal, even though no specific limitation period was prescribed. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application was deemed just and proper, as the petitioner failed to justify the delay adequately.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the petitioner's writ petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was without merit. The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the Tribunal's order was justified and not subject to interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's failure to provide valid reasons for the delay in filing the application for restoration ultimately led to the dismissal of the petition.