2014 (9) TMI 611 - HC - Central Excise

High Court Revives Tax Appeal, Imposes Costs for Negligence

TAJ HABERDASHERY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court granted the petitioner one last opportunity to present its case before CESTAT after acknowledging past shortcomings in pursuing the tax ... Restoration of appeal - Held that:- petitioner deserves one last opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal. We do notice that, in the past, the petitioner may not have persuaded the appeal with as much care as it should have been. However, by awarding some cost, the petitioner, in our opinion, should be given an opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits. Appeal restored. Issues: Restoration of Tax Appeal before CESTATIn the judgment delivered by Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ., the petitioner sought restoration of Appeal No. C/248/2006 before CESTAT, which was dismissed due to the petitioner's perceived lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The petitioner had requested an adjournment citing pending final decision by DGFT on an application related to import license status and export obligation fulfillment. The restoration application was previously dismissed by the Tribunal as no one appeared for the applicant, despite the Managing Director being present. The petitioner clarified that the outcome of the DGFT application would impact the pending tax appeal. The High Court, after hearing both counsels, decided to grant the petitioner one last opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal. Acknowledging past shortcomings in pursuing the appeal, the Court ordered the quashing of previous dismissal orders and restoration of the tax appeal to the Tribunal's file. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of &8377;15,000 to the respondents, with direct service permitted.This judgment primarily revolves around the issue of restoring a tax appeal before CESTAT that was dismissed due to the petitioner's perceived lack of interest in pursuing the case. The petitioner had cited pending decisions by DGFT as a reason for seeking an adjournment, emphasizing the impact of the outcome on the tax appeal. The Court recognized the petitioner's past shortcomings in handling the appeal but decided to grant one final opportunity to present the case before the Tribunal. By quashing the previous dismissal orders and restoring the appeal, the Court aimed to provide the petitioner with a chance to pursue the matter on its merits. The imposition of a cost of &8377;15,000 on the petitioner was deemed appropriate as a measure to ensure seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The Court's decision highlights the importance of diligently pursuing legal matters and the consequences of perceived lack of interest in prosecuting appeals.