TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Restoration of dismissed appeals under Central Excise Act - Compliance with Section 35F emphasized</h1> <h3>DEEPLONE POLYESTER PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., THANE-I</h3> DEEPLONE POLYESTER PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., THANE-I - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1649 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Restoration of dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The applicants filed miscellaneous applications seeking restoration of their dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to adhere to the stay orders dated 22-4-2013 and 24-6-2013, which required the deposit of adjudged duty demands. The applicants, after more than four and a half years from the final orders, deposited the required amount and filed the restoration applications. The applicants explained the delay in compliance was due to financial difficulties resulting from business losses, inactive status in the Department's records, and lack of assistance from the registry in complying with the orders. The Tribunal directed the applicants to submit an affidavit explaining the delayed compliance, which they did, stating they arranged and deposited the pre-deposit amount after significant effort.Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted the applicants' failure to comply with the stay orders and the belated compliance after more than four and a half years. The applicants did not mention financial difficulties in their initial stay applications. The Tribunal acknowledged the benefit the applicants enjoyed by not depositing the required amount for an extended period. Despite the delay, the Tribunal considered restoring the appeals if the applicants deposited the entire adjudged demands confirmed in the original orders. The Tribunal emphasized that justice would be served by restoring the appeals upon full compliance with the adjudged dues within four weeks from the date of the order.Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit the entire adjudged dues within four weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The restoration of the appeals was contingent upon timely compliance with the order. Failure to comply within the stipulated timeframe would result in automatic dismissal of the applications for restoration. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of with the directive to list the matter for further orders on a specified date.
TaxTMI 