Appeal restoration denied due to non-compliance with court order on deposit, underscores importance of adherence to directives.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of appeal as the appellant failed to comply with the Supreme Court's order to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores within a specified time frame. Despite making partial payments, the delay in the final payment of Rs. 1.00 crore was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with Supreme Court directives is mandatory, and any delays must be addressed directly with the Supreme Court. Non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order led to the dismissal of the restoration application, highlighting the importance of adhering to court directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.
2. Delay in depositing the required amount as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Entertainability of the application for restoration of the appeal without compliance with the Supreme Court's Order.

Issue 1: Restoration of Appeal
The appellant filed an application seeking restoration of their appeal, which was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal had directed the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 2.00 crores towards duty within a specified time frame. However, the appellants failed to comply with this direction. They challenged the Tribunal's order in a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which extended the time for deposit but upheld the requirement. The Tribunal concluded that the application for restoration of the appeal could only be entertained upon compliance with the Supreme Court's Order, and since there was no such compliance, the application was dismissed.

Issue 2: Delay in Deposit
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores within a specific time frame. The appellant made two deposits within the stipulated time but delayed the final payment of Rs. 1.00 crore. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in the final payment could not be condoned. The Tribunal highlighted that when a specific period is set by the Supreme Court for deposit, compliance is mandatory, and any delay should be addressed by approaching the Supreme Court for condonation. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has the authority to condone such delays. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay in the payment of Rs. 1.00 crore could not be overlooked.

Issue 3: Entertainability of the Application
The Tribunal reiterated that the present application for restoration of the appeal could only be considered if the appellants had complied with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order regarding the deposit. As the appellants failed to meet this requirement, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the directives of the Supreme Court and highlighted that non-compliance with such orders would result in the dismissal of restoration applications. Therefore, the application was dismissed due to the lack of compliance with the Supreme Court's Order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment sheds light on the issues surrounding the restoration of the appeal, the delay in depositing the required amount, and the entertainability of the application in the absence of compliance with the Supreme Court's Order.

---