Appeal restoration denied for non-compliance and delay

The applications for restoration of appeals (Nos. 851-853/07) were dismissed by the Bench due to non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit and untimely filing of the restoration application. The applicant failed to produce the compliance report before the Bench, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. Additionally, the restoration application was filed beyond the three-month period from the date of the final order dismissing the appeals. The Bench emphasized the importance of adhering to the three-month time limit for filing restoration applications and dismissed the applications in this case due to the lack of cause for the delay.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance and the timeliness of filing the restoration application.

Issue 1: Non-compliance leading to appeal dismissal
The applicant filed for restoration of appeal Nos. 851-853/07, which were dismissed by the Bench for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit. The applicant had deposited the required amount on 12-11-2008, before the compliance deadline of 18-11-2008. However, they failed to produce the compliance report before the Bench on 3-11-2008, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

Issue 2: Timeliness of restoration application
The applicant filed the restoration application on 5th November 2009, which was beyond the three-month period from the date of the final order dismissing the appeals. The JCDR cited a previous Tribunal decision and argued that the application should be dismissed based on the time limitation. The Registry confirmed that the final order was dispatched to the appellant on 19-11-2008, contradicting the appellant's claim of not receiving the order. The Tribunal referred to the Mumbai Bench decision in a similar case to emphasize the importance of filing restoration applications within the three-month period from the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Bench dismissed the applications for restoration of appeals as they were filed beyond the three-month period from the date of the final order dismissing the appeals. The decision was based on the established principle that such applications must be filed within the maximum period of three months from the dismissal of the appeal, with a requirement to disclose any cause for delay. Since no cause for the delay was disclosed in the present case, the applications for restoration were not entertained.

---