TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or orders. The Appeal had been dismissed in March 2007 but the Appellants chose to file the Application for restoration of Appeal only in April 2013 i.e. over six years later and the Appellants have not been able to justify the delay in preferring the restoration application. It is not open for the Appellants to contend that they were not aware of the dismissal of their Appeal for non-compliance - appeal dismissed decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 42 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Jas Sanghvi, i/b PDS Legal for Appellant Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Riyaz I. Chagla J. ) 1. The Appellant by the present Appeal is chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Order-in-Original dated 21st July 2005 confirmed the demands of NCCD and imposed penalty upon Appellant as well as General Manager of the Appellant under the provisions of the Finance Act. The Appellants filed an Appeal against the said order-in-original dated 21st July 2005 along with application of the stay before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs, Vapi. The notices for hearing were never received and therefore, the Appellants could not attend the personal hearing. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vapi, by an Order-in- Appeal dated 10th March 2006 dismissed the Appeal as well as the stay application filed by the Appellants by upholding the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 12th January 2007. Mr. Shah submitted that the order dated 12th January 2007 had been passed exparte and that the Appellants had not received notice of the hearing before the Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order dated 14th March 2007 dismissing the Appeal was again passed exparte as the Appellants had not received notice of the hearing since the factory had been closed since 2004. Mr. Shah submitted that the Appellants had been declared a Sick Industrial Company by the order of the BIFR and that they had been closed since 2004 and hence were unable to comply with he order of pre-deposit passed by the Appellate Tribunal and had accordingly applied for waiver of the pre-deposit amount together with restoration of the Appeal which had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has held that the Appellants had not bothered to comply with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the Appellants were only interested in prolonging the proceedings as also noticed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had given ample opportunities to the Appellants for complying with their prior orders. The Appeal had been dismissed in March 2007 but the Appellants chose to file the Application for restoration of Appeal only in April 2013 i.e. over six years later and the Appellants have not been able to justify the delay in preferring the restoration application. It is not open for the Appellants to contend that they were not aware of the dismissal of their Appeal for non-compliance. We concur with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
