9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1544 - AT - Central ExciseDelay in making deposit of pre-deposit - Held that - it appears that in the instant case there is a delay of more than 22 years which is extraordinary and the Tribunal has no power to condone this extraordinary delay - the application for condonation of Delay in filing the restoration application is rejected - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Restoration of Appeal 2. Condonation of Delay Restoration of Appeal: The assessee-Appellants filed applications for Restoration of Appeal and Condonation of Delay as the Tribunal had dismissed their appeals for failure to make a pre-deposit within the stipulated period. The assessee-Appellants argued that they were declared a sick unit by BIFR and made the pre-deposit in installments as per a rehabilitation scheme approved by BIFR. They contended that since they were not manufacturers, excise duty could not be levied on them. The assessee-Appellants cited previous cases to support their argument for condoning the delay of 22 years in filing the restoration application. Condonation of Delay: The DR for the Respondent argued against the restoration, stating that the duty liability of M/s GTC Indus Ltd. was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, making the contention of the assessee-Appellants unsustainable. The DR highlighted that the delay in filing the restoration application after 23 years was at the sweet will of the assessee-Appellants, as they failed to deposit the pre-deposit amount within the extended time granted by the Tribunal. The DR presented various cases to support the argument that the delay was unjustifiable. Judgment: After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found the delay of more than 22 years to be extraordinary and beyond its power to condone. Consequently, the application for Condonation of Delay in filing the restoration application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Restoration of Appeal application. The Tribunal held that both applications filed by the assessee-Appellants were dismissed.
|
