Page 252 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

690 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

before the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed to
make a deposit of Rs. 4 crores. Against the said order, M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co.
Ltd. filed a Review Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the meantime, the
appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed for non-compliance of the provi-
sions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. By way of these applications, the
appellants are seeking the restoration of appeal on the ground that there was no
direction of this Tribunal against the applicants to make pre-deposit, therefore,
the appeals cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central
Excise Act, 1944.
3. Heard the parties.
4. Considering the fact that the reasons for causing delay has been ex-
plained satisfactorily, therefore, the delay in filing the applications of restoration
of appeal is condoned by allowing the application for restoration of appeal.
5. Further, we find that as the main party failed to make pre-deposit as
directed by this Tribunal or by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal for the appli-
cants were dismissed by this Tribunal. In fact, the stay order for waiver of pre-
deposit and directions to make pre-deposit were against the main applicant i.e.
M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. and on the compliance by M/s. Pelican Tobacco
Co. Ltd. the applicant could have enjoyed the waiver of pre-deposit but as M/s.
Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. could not make pre-deposit, in that circumstance, the
applicants should not suffer, therefore, as the applications for stay of the appel-
lants have not been decided on merits by this Tribunal. In that circumstances, the
order of dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F
of Central Excise Act, 1944 are recalled and the appeals are restored to their orig-
inal no. with the direction to the registry. Thereafter, to fix a date for hearing of
the applications for stay filed by the applicants on merits.
6. With these terms, the applications for restoration of appeal are al-
lowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 690 (Tri. - All.)

IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar,
Member (T)
RAGHVENDRA MISHRA
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW
Final Order Nos. A/70149-70150/2020-EX(DB) and Misc. Order Nos. 70051-
70053/2020, dated 5-2-2020 in Application Nos. E/MISC/70348/2017,
E/Stay/57366 with E/Stay/59561/2013 in Appeal Nos. E/56837 & 58911/2013
Stay/Waiver of pre-deposit - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Require-
ment for assessee to deposit 7.5% of confirmed dues - Deposit to be in cash -

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  252