2018 (9) TMI 1205 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit - Held that - There are no grounds to restore the appeal which has been dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit - Althrough, the appellant was represented by his counsel and therefore cannot contend that he was not aware of dismissal of appeal for non-compliance - appeal cannot be restored - restoration of appeal application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal restoration due to non-compliance of predeposit
- Knowledge of appellant regarding dismissal of appeal
- Delay in filing application for appeal restoration

Analysis:
1. Appeal Restoration due to Non-Compliance of Predeposit:
The appellant sought to restore the appeal that was dismissed for non-compliance of predeposit. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to make a predeposit of &8377; 28.90 lakhs, out of which only &8377; 5 lakhs was deposited. Despite being granted an extension of six weeks to comply with the predeposit, the appellant failed to do so. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 7.6.2013 due to this non-compliance. The Tribunal found no grounds to restore the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant had been represented by counsel and was aware of the dismissal for non-compliance.

2. Knowledge of Appellant Regarding Dismissal of Appeal:
The appellant claimed a lack of awareness regarding the dismissal of the appeal for non-deposit, citing a change in counsel and non-receipt of the dismissal order. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was represented by counsel on the day of dismissal and had full knowledge of the extension granted for predeposit. The appellant's argument of being unaware of the dismissal was thus refuted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal restoration application.

3. Delay in Filing Application for Appeal Restoration:
The application for appeal restoration, as well as the miscellaneous application seeking to modify the stay order, were filed after a significant delay of about five years from the date of dismissal. The Tribunal considered this delay in conjunction with the appellant's failure to comply with the predeposit order and dismissed both applications. The delay in seeking restoration further weakened the appellant's case, contributing to the rejection of the appeal restoration plea.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with the predeposit order, rejected the appeal restoration application, and dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with tribunal directives and the consequences of delays in seeking appeal restoration.