Court denies restoration application for dismissed appeals, highlighting importance of timely compliance with orders.

The court rejected the appellant's restoration application seeking to reinstate two appeals dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order. Despite the appellant's arguments of financial constraints and partial payments, the judge emphasized the importance of timely compliance with pre-deposit orders. Citing legal precedents, the judge concluded that the appellant's failure to seek modifications/extensions or comply within a reasonable time justified the dismissal of the restoration application. Consequently, the court ruled against restoring the appeals, bringing closure to the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of two appeals dismissed for non-compliance of stay order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a restoration application seeking to reinstate two appeals, ST/175 and 176 of 2011, which were dismissed by CESTAT for failing to comply with a stay order. The stay order required the appellant to deposit specific amounts within eight weeks, which the appellant did not fulfill, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. The appellant, represented by Shri Rahul Gajera, argued that they were a small Security Agency currently closed and unable to pay the ordered amounts in full. They claimed to have made partial payments on specific dates and requested more time or issuance of a show cause notice before the dismissal of their appeals. The appellant cited case laws like Kamla Devi vs. CCE, Bangalore and CCE Kolkata-II vs. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Limited to support their argument.

On the other hand, Shri Manoj Kutty, representing the Revenue, contended that a considerable time had passed since the dismissal of the appeals, and if the appellant was genuinely willing to comply, they could have paid the entire pre-deposit amount to strengthen their case for restoration. Kutty relied on case laws like Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI and Hanila Era Textiles Ltd vs. UOI to justify the correct dismissal of the appeals due to non-compliance.

After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the judge noted the appellant's reliance on the judgment of the Kolkata High Court and the Gujarat High Court in similar cases. The judge emphasized that the appellant had ample time to make the required deposits or seek modifications/extensions but failed to do so. The judge highlighted the importance of timely compliance with pre-deposit orders and cited the judgments in Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI and Hanila Era Textiles Limited vs. UOI, which upheld dismissals for non-compliance. The judge concluded that the appellant's failure to request an extension or modification of the stay order, coupled with the passage of significant time without compliance, justified the dismissal of the restoration application.

In light of the observations made and the legal precedents cited, the judge rejected the application for Restoration of Appeals filed by the appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in court, bringing closure to the matter.

---