TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal denies restoration application for appeals dismissed due to non-compliance with stay orders.</h1> <h3>PREMA KANJI TANDEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, rejected the restoration application filed by the appellant seeking to revive appeals dismissed due to ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of Issues: Restoration of dismissed appeals after non-compliance with stay orders.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issue revolves around restoration applications filed by the appellant seeking to revive appeals that were dismissed due to non-compliance with stay orders dating back to 1983. The appellant failed to provide a directed bank guarantee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal had previously dismissed restoration applications in 1991, a decision upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in subsequent legal challenges. The current restoration application, filed around November 2008, aimed to revive the appeals by now complying with the directed amounts. However, the respondent opposed the restoration, arguing that the appellant had exhausted all appellate channels and should not be allowed to revive the appeals after more than 25 years. The Tribunal noted that the High Court and the Supreme Court had not interfered with the dismissal of the appeals in 1992, and the appellant had not deposited the directed amount before filing the restoration application, as required by previous decisions.Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a previous case, Tin Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, where it was established that restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance could be considered if there existed a reasonable cause. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found the period of four years from the dismissal of the appeal to be unreasonable, leading to the rejection of the restoration application. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the current restoration application, citing the appellant's failure to comply with previous directives and the existence of reasons for rejection upheld by higher courts. The decision underscores the importance of timely compliance with tribunal orders and the limitations on reviving appeals after prolonged periods of non-compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
