2014 (7) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Late Appeal Restoration Denied: Time-barred ROA application dismissed by CESTAT MUMBAI

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the Restoration of Appeal (ROA) application due to significant delay in filing, as it was considered ... Condonation of delay - Restoration of appeal - Inordinate delay of 4 years - Held that:- In the application there is no explanation given as to why it has taken almost 4 years to file the restoration application - Though the Central Excise law does not lay down any time limit for filing of restoration application, the settled legal position is that time limit for filing of appeal would apply in respect of application for restoration of appeal also as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kirtikumar Jawahar lal Shah Vs. Union of India - [2012 (10) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of L.J. Synthetic Mils Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I - [2010 (3) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In view of the above, application is belated and time barred - Condonation denied. Issues:1. Restoration of Appeal (ROA) application filed by the appellant after a significant delay.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dealt with the issue of a Restoration of Appeal (ROA) application filed by the appellant after a substantial delay. The appellant's appeal had been dismissed earlier due to the lack of requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes. However, the Committee later granted permission for the appellant to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. Despite this, the application for restoration of appeal was filed almost four years after receiving clearance from the Committee on Disputes, without any explanation for the delay.The Tribunal noted that while the Central Excise law does not specify a time limit for filing a restoration application, the established legal position indicates that the time limit for filing an appeal should also apply to the restoration of appeal applications. The Tribunal referred to judgments by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which held that the time limit for filing an appeal should be considered for restoration applications as well. In light of this legal precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's application was belated and time-barred.Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the application for restoration of appeal due to the significant delay in filing the application, as it was considered time-barred based on established legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment.