2000 (4) TMI 99 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance: Balancing Justice & Compliance

MASTER RECORDING CO. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI/COCHIN

The Tribunal considered applications for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with stay orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. ... Appeal - Restoration of Issues Involved:1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with stay orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.2. Consideration of financial hardships and subsequent compliance with pre-deposit requirements.3. Tribunal's inherent powers to restore appeals after compliance.Detailed Analysis:Restoration of Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance:The primary issue in these applications pertains to the restoration of appeals dismissed due to non-compliance with stay orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal examined each case individually to determine whether the appeals could be restored based on subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirements.Case Analysis:1. The Master Recording Company:- The appeal was initially dismissed for non-deposit of Rs. 1.25 lacs as directed by the Tribunal.- The first restoration application was dismissed due to non-compliance.- The second restoration application was also dismissed due to a five-year delay in compliance.- The applicant argued that financial hardships delayed the deposit and requested restoration after full compliance.- The Tribunal ultimately restored the appeal, considering the full deposit made and the financial difficulties faced.2. Shri K. Arumugam:- The appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of Rs. 10,000.- The applicant cited severe financial constraints and requested permission to deposit the amount.- The Tribunal directed the applicant to approach the department for challans and deposit the amount before seeking restoration.3. M/s. Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd.:- The appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of the entire duty amount.- The applicant faced financial hardships and delayed the deposit by six years.- The Tribunal restored the appeal after considering the full deposit made and the financial difficulties.4. M/s. Evertaut Steels Pvt. Ltd.:- The appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of Rs. 60,000.- The applicant cited company sickness and financial problems.- The Tribunal directed the applicant to seek restoration after making the required pre-deposit.5. M/s. Macnair Exports P. Ltd., Shri H.R. Bhatt & Shri Feroz B. Hajiani:- The company failed to deposit the required amounts, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.- Shri H.R. Bhatt and Shri Feroz B. Hajiani deposited their amounts but failed to notify the Tribunal.- The Tribunal restored the appeals of Shri H.R. Bhatt and Shri Feroz B. Hajiani due to compliance but rejected the company's restoration application for non-compliance.6. Star Carbides:- The appeal was dismissed for partial deposit.- The applicant later deposited the balance amount and cited financial distress.- The Tribunal restored the appeal, considering the full deposit made and the financial hardships.Tribunal's Inherent Powers:The Tribunal discussed its inherent powers to restore appeals dismissed for non-compliance. It referenced various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which clarified that the right to appeal is a statutory right subject to conditions. The Tribunal can dismiss appeals for non-compliance but also has the discretion to restore them upon subsequent compliance.Conclusion:The Tribunal emphasized that while the right to appeal is conditional, substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. It restored appeals where full compliance was eventually made, considering the financial hardships and the interests of justice. However, appeals were not restored where compliance was still pending.