Bahubali Plastics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an application by m/s. bahubali plastics pvt. ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 vide final order no. 413/2004/nb(c), dated 9-6-2004.2. shri v. raheja, learned advocate, submitted that the applicants were directed vide stay order no. 183/2004/nb(c), dated 20-4-2004 to deposit a sum of rs. 15,000/- within six weeks and compliance was to be reported on 9-6-2004; that due to financial difficulties, they could not deposit rs. 15,000/-; that now they have deposited the said sum on 1-11-2004 and, therefore, their appeal may be restored, mrs. n.l.butalia, learned sdr opposed the prayer by submitting that they had not complied with the stay order within the time limit specified by the tribunal; that they have deposited the amount after 5 months and, therefore, this cannot be treated as due compliance.3. we agree with the submissions of the learned sdr; that the compliance of the stay order passed by the tribunal has" to be made within the time limit specified or as further extended. in this master, applicants had not even requested for extension of time limit for complying with the stay order before the due date. in view of these facts, we do not find any merit in the application which is rejected.

Judgment:
1. This is an application by M/s. Bahubali Plastics Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Final Order No. 413/2004/NB(C), dated 9-6-2004.

2. Shri V. Raheja, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants were directed vide Stay Order No. 183/2004/NB(C), dated 20-4-2004 to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within six weeks and compliance was to be reported on 9-6-2004; that due to financial difficulties, they could not deposit Rs. 15,000/-; that now they have deposited the said sum on 1-11-2004 and, therefore, their appeal may be restored, Mrs. N.L.

Butalia, learned SDR opposed the prayer by submitting that they had not complied with the stay order within the time limit specified by the Tribunal; that they have deposited the amount after 5 months and, therefore, this cannot be treated as due compliance.

3. We agree with the submissions of the learned SDR; that the compliance of the stay order passed by the Tribunal has" to be made within the time limit specified or as further extended. In this master, applicants had not even requested for extension of time limit for complying with the stay order before the due date. In view of these facts, we do not find any merit in the application which is rejected.