2008 (9) TMI 854 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal permits appellant to refile lost appeal after registry error

The tribunal allowed the appellant to reconstruct and file the appeal that was claimed to have been filed before Tribunal Delhi in 1986. Despite ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Reconstruction of - Appeal claimed as filed in 1996 before CESTAT, New Delhi but Registry denying receipt Issues involved:1. Reconstruction of the appeal claimed to have been filed before Tribunal Delhi in 1986.2. Discrepancy in records regarding the filing of the appeal.3. Writ petition filed before the High Court seeking directions for file reconstruction.4. Decision on allowing the appellant to reconstruct and file the appeal.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the issue of reconstructing an appeal that the appellant claimed to have filed before Tribunal Delhi in 1986. The appellant's application for reconstruction was necessitated as the appeal was reported to be unavailable in the office records of the registry. The matter came before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD under the direction of the High Court of Gujarat, following a writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The tribunal considered various pieces of evidence presented by the appellant, including a letter sent to the Assistant Registrar along with 5 sets of appeals against a specific order. Despite discrepancies in the records and responses from the registry, the tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted copies of the appeal to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, and the jurisdictional Superintendent had even requested early hearing of the appeals, indicating the appellant's efforts to pursue the matter.3. The tribunal, after thorough consideration of the evidence and circumstances, concluded that the appeal was indeed filed before the Tribunal but might have been misplaced by the registry, leading to its unavailability in the records. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to allow the appellant to reconstruct and file the appeal. The appellant was directed to file a fresh appeal with the requisite fee within a month, considering that the bank draft enclosed with the original appeal was not encashed by the Tribunal.4. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application in favor of the appellant, granting permission to reconstruct and file the appeal within the specified timeframe. The decision aimed to address the discrepancies in the records and provide the appellant with an opportunity to pursue the appeal that was believed to have been filed earlier. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring access to justice and rectifying administrative errors to uphold the principles of fairness and due process in legal proceedings.