TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot disputed. The point of dispute is as to whether in these circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is to be restored. In our view, the ratio of the judgement of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy (2006 (2) TMI 189 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) and also the decision in the case of S.T. Texturisers Vs. Union of India (2000 (5) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the delay in compliance of the Stay Order dated 21.05.2008 is condoned and the Final Order dated 22.10.2008 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance is recalled. - Appeal restored. - Excise ROA No.54337/2014 in Appeal No.870/2008-EX(DB) - Misc. Order No.51814 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdered by the Tribunal vide Stay Order dated 21.5.2008 could not be paid in time on account of severe financial crisis, that the factory of the appellant is closed since 2004, that the appellant had paid ₹ 2.5 lakhs sometime in July, 2008, but the balance amount, on account of financial hardships, was paid only during the period from October, 2011 to June, 2014, that in these circumstances, the appeal should be decided on merits and for this purpose, the same should be restored, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (204) ELT 43 (Gujarat) (para-11), wherein the Honble Gujarat High Court has held that right of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 2002 (142) ELT 308 (Gujarat) . Shri Garg, therefore, pleaded for restoration of the appeal. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. DR, opposed the ROA application by pleading that there is no justification for restoration of the appeal after more than six years of dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35 F. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The Stay Order directing the appellant to make pre-deposit of ₹ 5,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks had been passed on 21.5.2008. But since the appellant failed to deposit the directed amount, the appeal was dismissed on 22.10.2008. However, before dismissal of appeal, out of ₹ 5 Lakhs, ₹ 2.5 lakhs h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
