2020 (2) TMI 1113 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - non-compliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the applicants did not comply with the stay orders dated 22-4-2013 and 24-6-2013 passed by this Tribunal and for that purpose, the appeals of the applicants were dismissed by the Tribunal for such non-compliance. We find from the available records that the above referred stay orders were compiled by the applicants on 8-3-2018 and 23-4-2018, which are more than four and a half years from the date of passing of the said stay orders. We also find that in the stay applications filed before the Tribunal, the applicants had not pleaded for the financial difficulties faced by them. Thus, for non-compliance of the stay orders, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The applicants are directed to deposit the entire adjudged dues confirmed in the original orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and to report compliance on 10-7-2019. The appeal shall be restored back to file subject to receipt of the compliance report by the next date of hearing. Registry is directed to list the matter on 12-7-2019 for further orders.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The applicants filed miscellaneous applications seeking restoration of their dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to adhere to the stay orders dated 22-4-2013 and 24-6-2013, which required the deposit of adjudged duty demands. The applicants, after more than four and a half years from the final orders, deposited the required amount and filed the restoration applications. The applicants explained the delay in compliance was due to financial difficulties resulting from business losses, inactive status in the Department's records, and lack of assistance from the registry in complying with the orders. The Tribunal directed the applicants to submit an affidavit explaining the delayed compliance, which they did, stating they arranged and deposited the pre-deposit amount after significant effort.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted the applicants' failure to comply with the stay orders and the belated compliance after more than four and a half years. The applicants did not mention financial difficulties in their initial stay applications. The Tribunal acknowledged the benefit the applicants enjoyed by not depositing the required amount for an extended period. Despite the delay, the Tribunal considered restoring the appeals if the applicants deposited the entire adjudged demands confirmed in the original orders. The Tribunal emphasized that justice would be served by restoring the appeals upon full compliance with the adjudged dues within four weeks from the date of the order.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit the entire adjudged dues within four weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The restoration of the appeals was contingent upon timely compliance with the order. Failure to comply within the stipulated timeframe would result in automatic dismissal of the applications for restoration. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of with the directive to list the matter for further orders on a specified date.