2012 (10) TMI 766 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeals - applicants have not complied with the order of pre-deposit Held that - Applications for restoration have been filed belatedly - applications for restoration are filed almost after four years after the appeals were dismissed by the Bench - there are series of decisions that indicate that restoration application should have been filed within three months from the date of dismissal of the appeal. In this case, it is not so - applications are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit order.
2. Timeliness of filing restoration applications.
3. Adequacy of property attachment by Revenue authorities as pre-deposit.

Issue 1: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit order
The judgment pertains to two applications seeking restoration of appeals dismissed by the Bench due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The counsel for the assessee applicants argued that they were unable to deposit the required amount and highlighted the attachment of their property by Revenue officers, valuing approximately Rs. 60 Lakhs, as a means to cover the pre-deposit. The counsel urged for the restoration of appeals to be heard on merits.

Issue 2: Timeliness of filing restoration applications
The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) contended that the restoration applications were filed belatedly, almost four years after the dismissal of the appeals by the Bench. The SDR cited precedents indicating that restoration applications should typically be filed within three months of appeal dismissal. The SDR also mentioned that the appellants had previously approached the High Court in a Tax Appeal, which was dismissed due to technical reasons like non-removal of defects.

Issue 3: Adequacy of property attachment by Revenue authorities as pre-deposit
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Bench found that the considerable delay in filing restoration applications rendered the attachment of the property by Revenue authorities insufficient to meet the conditions of the stay order. Consequently, the Bench dismissed both restoration applications as lacking in merits.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing restoration applications in compliance with legal precedents and highlights the significance of meeting pre-deposit requirements as ordered by the Bench. The decision emphasizes the need for parties to adhere to procedural timelines and fulfill financial obligations as per court directives to ensure the proper adjudication of appeals.