Inordinate delay bars restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit, where bona fide prosecution is absent.

An appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act could not be restored after more than ten years, because the delay was inordinate, unexplained and showed complete lack of diligence. The court treated the long gap as evidence that the applicant had not bona fide prosecuted the matter, and held that the earlier decision relied on was inapplicable since it did not involve a similar delay in seeking restoration. The refusal to restore the appeal was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the request to restore the appeal, filed after a delay of more than ten years from dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, was liable to be accepted.

Analysis: The appeal had earlier been dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction. The restoration application was filed only after a gap of more than ten years. Such an extraordinary and unexplained delay reflected complete lack of diligence and showed that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter. The earlier relied upon decision was found inapplicable because it did not involve a similar delay in seeking restoration.

Conclusion: The restoration request was rightly rejected and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal failed, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements cannot be restored after an inordinate and unexplained delay of many years, as such delay demonstrates absence of bona fide prosecution and justifies refusal of restoration.

---