Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applications for restoration of the appeals, filed after a long gap following rejection by the Settlement Commission, were maintainable and fit to be allowed.
Analysis: The appeals had earlier been withdrawn to approach the Settlement Commission under Section 35PA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When the Settlement Commission rejected the applications under Section 32F(7) and sent the matters back for disposal as if no application under Section 32E had been made, the applicants waited several years before seeking restoration. Although no express statutory limitation was prescribed for filing a restoration application, the Tribunal held that restoration could be granted only if the application was made within a reasonable period. The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory.
Conclusion: The restoration applications were not fit to be allowed and were dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to restore the withdrawn appeals because the applications were not filed within a reasonable time and no satisfactory cause was shown for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Even where no express limitation period is prescribed for restoration, the applicant must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time and satisfy the Tribunal with a credible explanation for the delay.