Appeal Dismissal and Restoration Orders Issued by Tribunal for Non-Compliance with Stay Order

The tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s. Hamsons Steels for non-compliance with the terms of the Stay Order, requiring them to pre-deposit a specified amount. In contrast, the appeal of Shri V.H. Shafiquar Rehaman, who initially complied with the Stay Order, was restored but later dismissed for non-appearance. Both parties sought restoration. The tribunal directed M/s. Hamsons Steels to pre-deposit the entire adjudicated amount within six weeks for appeal restoration, emphasizing compliance with precedent. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, with further action mandated by the registry.

---

---

Issues: Compliance with terms of Stay Order, restoration of appeals, pre-deposit requirement, non-appearance reasons, application for restoration.

The judgment deals with the compliance with the terms of Stay Order, restoration of appeals, pre-deposit requirements, reasons for non-appearance, and the application for restoration. The appellants were directed by Stay Order Nos. 376 and 377/1998 to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, with the balance of duties and penalties waived upon compliance. However, the appellant M/s. Hamsons Steels did not comply with the terms of the Stay Order, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. In contrast, the appeal of Shri V.H. Shafiquar Rehaman was restored as he had complied with the terms of the Stay Order initially. Subsequently, Shafiquar Rehaman's appeal was dismissed for non-appearance. Both parties filed restoration applications. The counsel for M/s. Hamsons Steels argued that they belatedly complied with the Stay Order by depositing the amount and requested the appeal to be heard on merits. The non-appearance of Shafiquar Rehaman's counsel during the dismissal was attributed to genuine reasons, claiming they were not informed of the hearing date.

The learned DR opposed restoring M/s. Hamsons Steels' appeal, citing the requirement to pre-deposit the entire amount due to a long delay, referring to a precedent case. However, the DR did not strongly object to restoring Shafiquar Rehaman's appeal due to non-appearance. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal noted that M/s. Hamsons Steels had not pre-deposited the entire adjudicated amount as required by precedent. Emphasizing the need for compliance, the tribunal directed M/s. Hamsons Steels to pre-deposit the entire adjudicated amount within six weeks to seek restoration of the appeal. A compliance report was requested by a specified date, with the registry instructed to issue this directive as a Misc. Order for further action.

---