9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make the deposit of the balance amount, their appeal was ordered to be dismissed. 2. The appellants have filed the present application seeking restoration of the appeal on 12-4-2002 on the ground that they had deposited the balance amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- on 6-4-2002. They had sought condonation of the delay in making the deposit on the ground that their factory remained closed and they could not manage the requisite amount in time. 3. The learned JDR, on the other hand, has contested this application by contending that delay in making the deposit is inordinate and is nearly of 15 months and as the same cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause. 4. We have heard both sides. The learned Counsel has not disputed that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the issue of inordinate delay in making the pre-deposit of the amount in terms of the stay order of the Tribunal was not at all involved. Moreover, in that case, the appeal was dismissed for non-production of proof of deposit of the penalty and from the application for restoration of the appeal, it revealed that the amount was deposited within the time granted, but for some reason, this fact could not be reported or brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of the passing of the order regarding dismissal of the appeal, but such is not the position in the present case. 5. In the 2nd case of Master Recording Co. v. CCE, Chennai/Cochin, supra, it has been observed that the Tribunal has inherent power to examine the issue of restora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed due to this lapse on the part of the counsel. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court ordered that one more opportunity be given to the appellants subject to deposit of Rs. 30,000/- within four weeks, and thereupon the Tribunal would restore the appeal and proceed to hear the same on merits. 6. But in the instant case, the facts are quite different and the observations of the Tribunal and the Apex Court in the above referred cases are not of any help to the appellants. The restoration application has been made after the lapse of 15 months. No doubt, the appellants had pleaded that they were facing financial hardship due to closure of the factory and could not manage the pre-deposit of the requisite amount. But no proof has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
