2015 (10) TMI 2489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent Per D.N. Panda It is earnestly submitted by the appellant that it is a fact on record that due to serious financial difficulties the appellant could not comply to the stay order passed by the Tribunal on 22.4.2013 whereby direction for predeposit of Rs. 65 lakhs was made granting eight weeks time to make such deposit and to report for compliance on 27.6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....depost Rs. 3 lakhs by 29.11.2013. By that time, 22.10.2013, the date fixed for compliance had expired. Accordingly, its appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. 2.The aforesaid factual background with the result of dismissal of appeal affected right of the appellant to seek appeal remedy since predeposit is mandatory condition of law to enter into appeal. Appellant fairly agrees that such a condi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... above by the learned counsel invites attention for sympathy. Tribunal is helpless becoming functus officio after passing an order. Therefore, restoration of the appeal is beyond its scope being a creature of the statute. Accordingly, present miscellaneous application is rejected. 7.While rejecting the miscellaneous application, we are reminded of a situation in the case of Lindt Exports Vs. Comm....