TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1962, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 18th September, 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') in Custom Restoration of Appeal Application No. 50290 of 2020 (hereinafter, 'impugned order'), which is almost 21 years later. 3. Vide the impugned order, CESTAT has refused the further extension for the restoration of the appeal. 4. In the present case, the seizure of 702 kilograms of silver had taken place on 30th August, 1991. The investigation was concluded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, and the Order-in-Original which is dated, 29th September, 1997 (hereinafter, 'OIO') was passed by the Respondent Department. Vide the OIO, absolute confisc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Anr.', (hereinafter, 'first SLP') and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The order reads as under: "Upon hearing counsel the court made the following ORDER The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 8. Thereafter, since the Appellant could not make the pre-deposit within the time allowed, vide order dated 16th August, 1999, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal on the ground that the pre-deposit was not made. 9. The Appellant had then filed an application seeking permission for restoration of the appeal and to make the pre-deposit. However, the said application was also dismissed on 26th February, 2007 by the CESTAT. 10. The said dismissal of the restoration application was challenged by the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely, the Appellant has not had an opportunity to argue the matter on merits before the CESTAT due to non-payment of pre-deposit. The case of the Appellant is that due to precarious financial conditions, the pre-deposit could not be paid on time. 15. Mr Aditya Singla, ld. SSC, however, submits that the Appellant has had two rounds before different High Courts and also two rounds before the Supreme Court. Hence, it is his submission that the Appellant does not deserve any more opportunities and thus, the present appeal shall not be entertained. 16. The Court has heard the parties and considered the matter. 17. The chronology of events would show that though the first SLP filed by the Appellant was dismissed as withdrawn, the second S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after so many years, the petitioner has filed an application dated 2nd February. 2007 to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi submitting that he has now arranged an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, that this amount be received and the appeal may be consequently restored. This application has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order passed on 15th March, 2007 and therefore this petition. 4. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to a judgement of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hussain Haji Harun alias Hussein Kabiju vs. Union of India and others reported at AIR 1988 GUJARAT 218 where the question concerning the powers of the Tribunal under the relevant Section to restore appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on has been made to the Tribunal to receive the amount of pre-deposit, which now the petitioner has deposited, i.e. Rs. 5 lacs. Certainly, such an application could not have been entertained and in our view, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal. 6. The petition stands dismissed." Order dated 29th October, 2007 in SLP (Civil) No. 19590/2007 "The Special Leave Petition is dismissed." 18. In view of the fact that the Allahabad High Court had already rejected this very prayer that has been sought in the present appeal and the matter has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that this appeal cannot be entertained at this stage. 19. The Court, initially, at first blush, was incl....