9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave gone through the reason given by the assessee in their ROA application. Most of the facts and developments are prior to passing of the stay order, which already stand taken note of by the Tribunal. The period to deposit expired in November 2007 and nothing on record to show as to what happened between the date of passing the stay order and date of reporting compliance leading to dismissal of the appeal so as not to enable the appellant to deposit the amount in question. - Restoration denied. - C/ROA/20543/2015 in C/314/2004-DB - Misc Order No. 21343 / 2015 - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - Smt Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok Kumar Arya, Technical Member Mr. P.K. Shetty, Advocate : For the Petitioner Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the Revenue draws our attention to the stay order wherein after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances including merits of the case as also financial position and the fact that the appellant being a BIFR company, the Bench took a lenient view and directed the appellant to deposit only an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs out of the huge confirmed demand of ₹ 7.45 crores. Even then the appellant has not deposited the said small amount within the period granted by the Tribunal, the prayer to restore the appeal after a gap of 7 = years should not be accepted. 4. Both the sides have relied upon and referred to various decisions of the Hon ble High Courts. The Tribunal in the case of Ablaze Process System (P) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India [2006 (204) E.L.T. 43 (Guj.)]. It stands held in the said decisions that the order of dismissal for non-compliance of condition of pre-deposit are not final order and the appellate authority has power to consider the restoration of the appeal. The learned advocate also referred to Hon ble High Court of Kerala decision in the case of Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise Cus., Cochin [2014 (310) E.L.T. 279 (Ker.)] wherein delay of 16 years in compliance of the stay order of the Tribunal was condoned by the Hon ble High Court and the appeal was restored, by observing that during the relevant period, there were financial constrain on the part of the assessee and subsequent developments of the assessee entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are prior to passing of the stay order, which already stand taken note of by the Tribunal. The period to deposit expired in November 2007 and nothing on record to show as to what happened between the date of passing the stay order and date of reporting compliance leading to dismissal of the appeal so as not to enable the appellant to deposit the amount in question. The proceedings which are going before the BIFR Board and High Court, are only related to litigation between the appellant and other party and cannot be held to be a valid reason for non-deposit of the small amount of ₹ 10 lakhs. As such, we find no justification for restoration of the appeal. ROA application is, accordingly, rejected. (Pronounced in open court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
