1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Bhanot for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9-3-2006 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the second restoration application of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in this writ petition, relying upon certain decisions, that it was not necessary to make the pre-deposit when the property of the petitioner had been attached by an order of the Commissioner, Central Excise.
4. Unfortunately, the facts in a chronological order reveal the correct state of affairs.
5. These facts are given below:—
On 16-1-2003, a conditional interim order was obtained by the petitioner in the appeal from the CESTAT requiring certain amount of pre-deposit. The deposit was not made although there was no attachment order at that time and consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 29-5-2003.
6. A restoration application was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected on the same ground of failure to deposit by order dated 24-7-2003. Even at this time, there was no attachment order. Thereafter, the dismissal of the restoration was not challenged by the petitioner.
7. On 16-2-2005, an attachment order was passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and based on that attachment order, after a period of two and a half years of the dismissal of the appeal, now the petitioner applied for restoration again by application dated 14-9-2005. Even in this application, the petitioner did not say a word about the present contention that he was not liable to make the deposit because of the attachment order. This second restoration application was also rejected by the impugned order dated 9-3-2006.
8. Having regard to the above facts, we are of the view that this writ petition by which the petitioner now seeks reopening of the appeal, which was dismissed three years ago, is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court arising from the order of attachment dated 16-2-2005.
9. We are further of the opinion, that this order of attachment cannot be permitted to open the chapter closed long before.
10. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter in our discretionary jurisdiction.
11. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.