2013 (8) TMI 894 - AT - Customs

Dismissed Appeals for Restoration Due to Non-Compliance with Court Orders

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain Versus. C.S.T. Delhi

The Tribunal dismissed the applications for restoration of appeals (Nos. 387 & 388/2006) due to non-compliance with a stay order issued in 2006, ... Restoration of Appeal – Non-Compliance of Order – Recovery of drawback amount – Appellants seeking restoration of appeal, which were dismissed for non-compliance to Stay order – Held that:- stay order was passed directing appellants to deposit amount within 8 weeks and subject to that deposit, recovery of remaining amount of draw-back and interest was stayed during pendency of appeal – Appellants failed to report compliance to said order, therefore appeals were dismissed since right of appeal was conditional – Appellants did not come forward to ventilate their grievance for more than 6 (six) years – Therefore they shall not be granted any immunity to seek restoration – Restoration applications dismissed – Decided against Assesse. Issues:Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order.Analysis:The judgment deals with the application for the restoration of two appeals (Nos. 387 & 388/2006) which were dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order dated 01.11.2006. The appellant's counsel argued that certain developments indicated no liability on the appellant, justifying the restoration of the appeals.The stay order issued in 2006 required the appellants to deposit a specified amount within 8 weeks. Failure to comply with this order led to the dismissal of the appeals on 02.01.2007. The right of appeal was contingent upon the deposit directed by the Tribunal, making compliance crucial for the continuation of the appeals.Despite the dismissal of the appeals in 2007, the appellants did not challenge the order or approach the Tribunal to address their grievances promptly. The delay of over six years in seeking restoration was deemed unacceptable, and subsequent developments in the case were not considered grounds for restoring the appeals.The judgment also refers to the legal principle that dismissed appeals are generally not restorable by the Tribunal, citing a precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Lindt Exports (2012). This precedent establishes that restoration of dismissed appeals is not a standard practice, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders and procedural requirements.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for restoration of the appeals, highlighting the significance of adherence to court orders and the limitations on seeking restoration after a significant lapse of time. The judgment underscores the need for parties to promptly address legal issues and comply with court directives to maintain the integrity of the legal process.