2018 (4) TMI 1194 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit - Held that - When the Tribunal has directed to make deposit within a prescribed time, the compliance cannot be made at the will and pleasure of the appellant. The appellant before us has neither made any deposit nor made request for extension of time to comply the Order - appellant herein was given enough time for compliance of pre-deposit order but had failed to comply with the same. There is no merit in the application for restoration of appeal - ROA application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal due to non-compliance of pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking to restore the appeal that was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit. The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of ?85,000 within a specified time frame, but failed to do so. The appeal was subsequently dismissed. The appellant later deposited the amount and filed for restoration. The appellant argued that since the pre-deposit was now made, the appeal should be reinstated. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the argument. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the application, stating that the Tribunal had lost jurisdiction after dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. The respondent argued that allowing restoration after delayed compliance would defeat the purpose of the pre-deposit order. The respondent also cited previous Tribunal decisions to support this stance.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not complied with the pre-deposit order within the specified time frame. The appellant neither made the deposit nor requested an extension to comply with the order. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance, and the appellant only made the deposit after a significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance cannot be at the discretion of the appellant once a specific time frame is set by the Tribunal. The Tribunal distinguished a cited case where the appellant had made partial deposits and requested an extension, as the current appellant had not made any deposit or sought an extension. The Tribunal found no merit in the restoration application, stating that the appellant had more than enough time to comply but failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the application for restoration of the appeal due to non-compliance of the pre-deposit order was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance with orders and rejected the appellant's argument for restoration after a significant delay in making the deposit.