The Court may restore appeals dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit and significant delay in restoration applications, provided the appellant undertakes to pay the admitted duty amount.

Prayer in CMA No. 2069 of 2026:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, to answer the Substantial question of law in favour of the appellant and consequently allow the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Misc. Order No. MO/40034/2026-EX (DB) in E/Appeal No.299/2008 dated 21-1-2026 passed by the Tribunal.

Prayer in CMA No. 2004 of 2026:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, to allow the present CMA by setting aside the Misc. Order No. MO/40037/2026-EX DB in E/Appeal No.302/2008 dated 21-1-2026 passed by the Tribunal.

Prayer in CMA No. 2252 of 2026:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, to allow the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Misc. Order No.MO/40036/2026-EX (DB) in E/Appeal No.301/2008 dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal.

Prayer in CMA No. 2253 of 2026:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, to allow the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by setting aside the Misc. Order No.MO/40035/2026-EX (DB) in E/Appeal No.300/2008 dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.A.Mudimannan Annamalai in all cases

For Respondent(s): Mr. A.P. Srinivas, in all cases Senior Standing Counsel

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunder Mohan J.)

As all appeals pertain to the same assessee for different periods, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of MS Ingots falling under chapter sub-heading 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3. The Assessing Authority (Original Authority) i.e., Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, passed orders demanding duty and imposed equal amount of penalty as follows:

[[IMG_1]]

4. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the first appellate authority. Since the appellant did not comply with the condition of pre-deposit, the appeals were dismissed.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the tribunal and the matter was once again remanded to the first appellate authority and the appeals were once again dismissed, since the appellant did not comply with the condition to make a pre-deposit. Those facts may not be necessary for the purpose of deciding these appeals.

5. By an order dated 28.05.2009, the tribunal had directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs. The appellant approached this Court in WP.Nos.18942 to 18945 of 2009 and this Court, by an order dated 05.12.2023, directed the appellant to make a pre- deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs and granted six weeks' time. The appellant failed to comply with the said direction also. Therefore, by an order dated 03.07.2014, the tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.

6. Thereafter, nearly 11 years later, the appellant sought for restoration of the appeals and undertook to make the pre-deposit amount as directed by this Court in the writ petitions. By the impugned orders, the tribunal rejected the request for restoration of appeals, since it was filed with a huge unexplained delay of 3985 days and the appellant had not complied with the directions of this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if the appellant is not permitted to challenge the assessment orders, they would be liable to pay penalty and interest, which they are not otherwise liable to pay and hence, prayed that the appeals may be restored and that the appellant would deposit Rs.20 Lakhs towards duty, as directed by this Court in the writ petitions.

8. The learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, however, would submit that the appeals cannot be restored at this stage even without the appellant paying the admitted duty of Rs.54 Lakhs.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter took further instructions from the appellant and undertook to deposit the admit