2017 (11) TMI 2 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - decision of stay petition ex-parte - Revenue stated that from the very beginning the appellants were negligent and the Tribunal vide Order dated 02.02.2016 decided the stay application in the absence of the appellant after recording that the appellants have not been appearing for so many occasions - Held that - from the very beginning the appellant has been negligent in pursuing his case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted many opportunities to the applicant to appear and defend the case but when the appellant did not appear, the Tribunal decided the Stay Petition ex parte on 02.02.2016 and thereafter a miscellaneous application was filed for recalling the Stay Order and none appeared for defending the applicant - In view of these facts, we do not find any justified reasons to recall our order - restoration cannot be allowed - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of Appeal No. E/27220/2013.
2. Non-compliance of Stay Order dated 02.02.2016.
3. Dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance.
4. Recall of the Stay Order dated 02.02.2016.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of Appeal No. E/27220/2013, challenging Order-in-Original No. 10/2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of ?2,68,38,623 for sponge iron valued at ?16,44,52,340, along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal had earlier directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty amount under the impugned order, which was not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant claimed financial crisis resulting in the closure of the factory, defaulting on loans, and facing recovery actions by financial institutions. The appellant engaged an advocate for representation, who failed to appear during crucial proceedings. Despite efforts to recall the Stay Order, non-compliance persisted, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

3. The Revenue argued that the appellant consistently showed negligence by not appearing for various proceedings. The Tribunal, after granting multiple opportunities, decided the Stay Petition ex parte due to the appellant's absence. Subsequent attempts for recalling the Stay Order were also unsuccessful, resulting in the dismissal of appeals for non-compliance.

4. After evaluating submissions, the Tribunal noted the appellant's persistent negligence in pursuing the case. Despite ample opportunities, the appellant failed to appear, leading to the ex parte decision on the Stay Petition and subsequent dismissal of appeals. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to recall the order, ultimately dismissing the restoration of appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's rationale behind dismissing the appeal restoration application due to non-compliance with the Stay Order.