2016 (3) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), Chennai. This Tribunal vide MISC Order No.41559/2014 dt. 16.9.2014, ordered predeposit of entire amount of differential duty of Rs. 1,58,81,401/. The said MISC order was passed exparte as none appeared on that date. It was also recorded that on several occasions stay application was adjourned at the request of the counsel. Since the appellant failed to appear, predeposit was ordered to make predeposit within 4 weeks and to report compliance on 28.10.2014 and the appellants neither complied with the order nor any representation was made against stay order. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.40689/2014 dt. 28.10.2014 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. 2. Ld. advocate appearing for the appellant reiterated the application for restora....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the part of the advocate/counsel, he pleaded for restoration. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellant . He submits that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant before deciding the stay application and since appellant not appeared, predeposit was ordered. The appellant also failed to intimate the change of address and non-existence of factory of premises before Tribunal. They filed the ROA after one year from the date of dismissal of appeal which should not be entertained. 4. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of records, correspondence between the appellant and their legal associates, we find that the counsel engaged to appear had returned the brief and withdrawn from ap....