Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Kobra Drugs Ltd. vs Cce, Bhopal on 13 February, 2001
ORDER
V.K.AGRAWAL
1. Today the matter is posted for hearing of application for restoration of appeal. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf o the applicant, M/s Kabra Drug Ltd. They however, under their letter dt. 3-2-2001 have submitted submissions for consideration.
2. Shri K. Panchatcharam, Ld. JDR, mentioned that the application were directed by the Tribunal vide Stay Order No. S/603/99 NB (SM) 17-12-99 to deposit Rs. 1 Lakh on or before 31-2-2000; that the compliance was to be reported on 7-2-2000; that as no one appeared on 17-2-2000 nor any evidence was produced to show that they had complied with Stay Order the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act Vide Final Order No. A/190/2000/NB(SM) dt/ 7-2-2000; that the applicants subsequently filed Restoration. Application No. E/ROA/64/2000 which came up for hearing on 19-10-2000; that the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, extended the time for making deposit on or before 17-11-2000, and the compliance was to be reported on 21-11-2000. The Ld. DR, further, mentioned that as no one appeared on 21-11-2000 and also there was no communication from them, the ROA application was dismissed vide Misc. Order No. M/244/2000-NB dt. 21-11-2000; that the applicants had in the meantime submitted an application for consideration of their stay application along with the balance sheet; that this application had been numbered as Restoration Application; that this was not a Restoration application as till that time their earlier application for restoration of appeal already filed by them was on records of the Tribunal; that as their application for restoration has already been dismissed by the Tribunal, no further request from them for waving the requirement of pre-deposit can be considered as they were asked to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh after considering their submissions; that subsequently time for making the payment was also extended by the Tribunal.
3. I find from the submissions made from the Ld. DR that the present application has been wrongly treated as a restoration application. It cannot be a Restoration application as already an Application filed by them was on the record of the Tribunal, which has been rejected only on 27-11-2000 vide Misc Order No. M/244/2000/NB. As the appeal has been dismissed for non compliance with provisions of Section 35F of the Cental Excise Act and their Restoration Application also stands dismissed, no further action on their submissions for waiver of pre-depositis called for.