TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal duty of Rs. 7.45 crores approximately, as a condition of hearing of their appeal. 2. Arguing on the application, learned advocate fairly agrees that the stay order passed by the Tribunal directing them to deposit only an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs out of the confirmed demand of Rs. 7.45 crores has not been challenged by the appellant before any appellate authority and as such, attained finality. He also fairly agrees that the directed amount was not deposited by them within the period given by the Tribunal and consequently, their appeal was dismissed. However, he submits that the said deposit could not be made on account of financial difficulty having occurred on account of the fact of the appellant having been declared as sick unit under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y observing that the Tribunal was completely justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner for restoration of the appeal. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah Vs. Union of India [2012 (282) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.)], while deciding an appeal against dismissal for non-compliance order of the Tribunal observed that the assessee's plea that the deposit could not be made in time due to financial difficulty cannot be accepted and there has to be some reasonable period of limitation for restoration of such appeals which were dismissed on the ground of belated compliance. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lindt Export [2012 (278) E.L.T. 587 (Del.)] has set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered for such restoration, are the reasons for non-depositing the directed amount and the period of delay in the compliance of the stay order. On going through the stay order passed by the Tribunal, we find that it is a detailed order which stands passed after considering the prima facie merits of the case as also the financial condition of the appellant. The fact of the appellant unit being a BIFR unit was also considered. The said stay order passed by the Tribunal was allowed to attain finality by the assessee inasmuch as the same was not challenged. As such, it becomes clear that the stay order of the Tribunal, in reference to the amount to be deposited and the period within which the same should be deposited had attained finality.....