Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 886 - AT - CustomsSeeking restoration of appeal - failure to comply with the statutory requirement of deposit contemplated under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - it is stated that the appellant was close to bankruptcy due to financial crisis and so could not deposit the statutory amount contemplated under Section 129A of the Customs Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1982, leaves no manner of doubt that it is only when the appellant does not appear when the case is called on for hearing and the appeal is dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the order and restore the appeal. In the present case, learned counsel of the appellant had appeared on the date fixed and made submissions. It is on a consideration of the submission advanced that that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirement. Rule 20, in such circumstances, would not be applicable. It is true that no time limit is prescribed for filing an application for restoration of appeal, but nevertheless the applicant has to be the vigilant and the application should be filed at the earliest opportunity after explaining the cause for non-appearance of the applicant on the date when the matter was called out. In the present case, the application was filed by the appellant for recall of the order dated 07.07.2015 only on 31.05.2022. The appellant had throughout contested before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court that it should not be required to deposit the amount because the un-amended provisions of Section 35 of the Customs Act would be applicable. Even after the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court on 23.01.2017, the appellant took more than five years to file the application for recall of the order. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the applicant for this enormous delay. In fact, only a casual statement has been made that earlier the financial capacity of the appellant was bad and it took sometime to recover, whereafter the amount was deposited in September 2020. The application was filed after two years of the deposit. The application, therefore, deserves to be rejected for this reason also. Application dismissed.
|