TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imagination, there could be a justification to file an application at the sweet will of the applicant. Since the original period for filing the appeal is itself described as three months, the application for restoration will have to be filed within 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 present application, there is no cause disclosed – application dismissed - E/1192/2004 - M/621/2009-WZB/C-I/(EB), - Dated:- 7-5-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.S. Jagesha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.A. Sayeed, JDR, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance of order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order of dismissal was recalled and it was restored pursuant to the application moved by the appellant under order dated 11-8-2005. While restoring the appeal, the stay application was fixed for hearing on 14-9-2005. Thereafter, under order dated 15-9-2005, the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 18,62,219/- by 30-10-2005. Further, under order dated 18-5-2007, the earlier order regarding the quantum of pre deposit was modified and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.00 lakhs, instead of depositing the entire amount demanded under the impugned order. 6. The appellant could deposit only a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs by August 2007 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the same was required to be deposited, nor the application discloses any cause for the delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no reason disclosed for failure on the part of the appellant or the advocate to appear before the Tribunal on 25-6-2008, when the earlier application for restoration of the appeal had come up for hearing and was dismissed. 8. Considering the fact that the appeal relates to the year 2004, and failure on the part of the appellant to disclose reasons for absence of the appellant or representative before the Tribunal on the relevant dates when the matter came up for hearing apparently discloses lethargy and lack of efforts on the part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
