9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to deposit Rs. 6 lacs. Under the circumstances, the submission that the petitioner was facing financial difficulties and that petitioners had shown their bona fides by depositing the amount towards pre-deposit does not merit acceptance. Thus in respect of such inordinate delay of more than five years and half years with a one sentence explanation that the petitioners were suffering from financial difficulties, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a reasonable explanation. Also no application for extension of time was ever moved before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal in rejecting the restoration application. Even the present petition challenging the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner-company had not made out a prima facie case in its favour for waiver of the entire amount of duty confirmed against it. Accordingly, by an order dated 15th January, 2004 the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the losses incurred by the petitioner-company during the financial year directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- within six weeks from 15-1-2004 on compliance of which there would be a waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty and entire amount of penalty and recovery thereof would remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The matter was to come up for reporting compliance on 10th March, 2004. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 10th March, 2004 ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of engaging a counsel. By the impugned order dated 22nd February, 2010, the Tribunal observed that apart from claiming financial difficulty in raising funds which were required to be deposited in terms of the stay order dated 15th January, 2004, there was no satisfactory ground disclosed even for condonation of delay caused in filing the application. The Tribunal was of the view that application for restoration of appeal beyond the period of limitation cannot be entertained unless it discloses reasonable cause for delay in approaching the Tribunal and, accordingly, rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed present petition sometime on or about 30th June, 2012, that is, after a period of more than two year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use and as such, the petitioners should be permitted to prosecute the appeal on merits. 7. On the other hand Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal stating that there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners at all stages, that is, in depositing the amount of pre-deposit, in filing miscellaneous application for restoration before the Tribunal, as well as in presenting the present petition before this court. It was submitted that considering the gross delay in making the pre-deposit together with the fact that there was no reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing the miscellaneous application for restoration, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said application. 8. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit came to be passed. It may be pertinent to note that such application came to be rejected by an order dated 20th February, 2010 however, it was only in June, 2012 that the present petition came to be filed, that is, after a period of more than two years from the date of the impugned order. Furthermore, in the entire memorandum of the petition, there is not even a whisper as to why there was a delay of more than two years in filing the present petition. 10. Thus, there is delay at two stages. Firstly, in filing the miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal, and secondly, in filing the present petition. 11. Insofar as the delay caused in filing the miscellaneous application for restoration is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication for extension of time was ever moved before the Tribunal. The petitioners took their own time in paying the amount of pre-deposit and then filed the application for restoration. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal in rejecting the restoration application. 12. Besides, as noticed earlier, even the present petition has been filed after a period of two years from the date of the impugned order without any explanation worth the name coming forth in the petition. In the meanwhile, a period of more than eight years have elapsed since the dismissal of the appeal. In the opinion of this court, a period of two years in challenging the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be a norma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
