TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on 17-1-2008, no compliance was reported. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thereafter the applicant filed this application for Restoration of Appeal on 25-11-2009 stating that although the amount was not deposited on or before 17-1-2008 but the applicant has deposited the same on 5-3-2008 and sent a copy of challan to his Counsel for preparing application for Restoration of Appeal but the clerk of the learned Counsel kept the challan in file and did not inform to the ld. Counsel about the same. The applicant came to know of this fact only when the department has asked the applicant to make the deposit whole of the amount as per the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losing the cause for delay. He further relied on D.K. Mishra - 2009 (243) E.L.T. 420 (Tri. -Del) wherein this Tribunal has held that appeals once dismissed for non-compliance of statutory obligation under the said Act, cannot be restored without a sufficient cause in that regard is made out - in absence of sufficient cause being made out in stay applications, applications for restoration dismissed. Hence the application should not be allowed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have gone through the application. In this case it is true that the applicant failed to make the deposit as per direction of this Tribunal s vide order dated 2-11-2007. Neither any application for modification of stay order nor any request for extension of time was made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the maximum period of three months from the dismissal of the appeal. In any case, any application filed beyond such period has to disclose cause for the delay . In the case of D.K. Mishra (supra) this Tribunal has further held that mere statement that due to financial crisis the applicant could not deposit the amount is not sufficient to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the matter of deposit of amount. In fact it is a mere submission which is required to be substantiated/supported by the factual matrix in that regard. The appeals one dismissed for non-compliance of statutory obligation under the said Act, cannot be restored without a sufficient cause in that regard is made out. In this case also the applicant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
