2018 (12) TMI 499 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit - case odd appellant was that the pre-deposit was made though belatedly - Held that - The appellant failed to comply the earlier order of this Tribunal and they also failed to comply with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, whereby pre-deposit was ordered. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal have already passed detailed and reasoned order on dismissal of the application for restoration of appeal vide order dated 28.01.2016. Thereafter, there is no change in circumstances, therefore, the present ROA is not maintainable. Since the order dated 28.01.2016 has attained finality, the same cannot be disturbed - Restoration of appeal application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for restoration of appeal due to non-compliance with Tribunal orders and pre-deposit requirements.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an application for restoration of appeal due to non-compliance with Tribunal orders and pre-deposit requirements. Initially, the appellant filed an appeal against an impugned order, which was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to deposit the remaining adjudged dues and report compliance. However, the appellant failed to comply with this direction, leading to the confirmation of the demand by the adjudicating authority. Subsequent appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements set by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the required pre-deposit was eventually made, albeit belatedly, and relied on legal precedents to support the restoration of the appeal. The appellant's counsel cited judgments such as Priya Dyers Vs. CCE (Guj-HC) 2014 (305) ELT 504 (Guj.) and Kissan Gramodyog Sansthan Vs. CCE, Kanpur (SC) 2017 (50) STR 103 to emphasize that once the pre-deposit was made, the appeal should be restored.

3. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), supported the Tribunal's previous order dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal, comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair and Mr. Raju, carefully considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. It was noted that the appellant had consistently failed to comply with previous orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding pre-deposit requirements.

4. In light of the appellant's repeated non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders and the finality of the previous dismissal order dated 28.01.2016, the Tribunal found no grounds for the restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that there had been no change in circumstances warranting a different decision. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of appeal, citing the lack of maintainability due to the appellant's history of non-compliance.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues surrounding the application for restoration of appeal and the Tribunal's decision based on the appellant's failure to comply with pre-deposit requirements and previous orders.