2006 (5) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Application for Appeal Restoration Denied Due to Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order

The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal due to the applicants' persistent non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Despite ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of Issues:1. Restoration of appeal based on non-compliance with stay order.2. Previous rejections of applications for restoration.3. Non-compliance with pre-deposit order.4. Attachment of property by various departments.5. Repeated filing of miscellaneous applications without compliance.Analysis:1. The application for restoration of appeal was filed due to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order dated 16-1-2003. The department had attached the mills of the applicants to ensure recovery of adjudged dues. The applicants filed multiple applications for restoration, but all were rejected, leading to the current request for restoration.2. The Departmental Representative argued that the mill's property had already been attached by the Bank of Maharashtra and the Income-tax Department before the department issued the attachment order. The applicants had not complied with the pre-deposit order, and all their previous restoration applications were also rejected, indicating a pattern of non-compliance.3. The appeal in question was filed against an Order-in-Original demanding a substantial duty amount and imposing a penalty. The applicants failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement despite extensions and opportunities provided. The appeal was ultimately dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act.4. The applicants claimed compliance by stating that their factory had been attached by various departments. However, the Tribunal found that such attachment did not constitute compliance with the order. The repeated attachment of the same property by different entities did not fulfill the pre-deposit requirement.5. The Tribunal rejected the current miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal as the applicants had not deposited the required amount. Despite previous rejections and opportunities to comply, the applicants continued to file applications without meeting the necessary conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that filing applications without adhering to the order could not be accepted.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal due to the applicants' persistent non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, despite multiple opportunities and previous rejections of similar applications. The attachment of the property by various departments did not fulfill the requirements set by the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the miscellaneous application.