2015 (2) TMI 786 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal restores dismissed appeals, acknowledges compliance with stay order, rectifies mislisting for justice

Mahavir Castings Pvt. Ltd. Ronak S. Shah Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax - Ahmedabad-I

The Tribunal recalled the order of dismissal dated 24.3.2006, restored the appeals in their original numbers, and allowed the applications for restoration ... Restoration of appeal - Pre deposit ordered - Compliance made by due date - Appeal dismissed for non compliance - Restoration application mistakenly taken as extension of stay order - After noticing mistake extension of stay denied - Held that:- applicant complied with the stay order before the date of dismissal of appeals. The Tribunal by order dtd 24.3.2006 dismissed the appeals for non compliance of the stay order. In May 2005, the applicant filed the applications for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance of stay order. It seen from the Notice dtd 21.7.2014 of the Registry of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the said applications for Restoration of appeals inadvertently listed as extension for stay order and the Tribunal by orders time to time extended the period of stay orders. However, in 2014 it was noticed by the Registry of Mumbai Bench. Apparently, there is no fault on the part of the applicant. - applicant filed applications for restoration of appeal within two months from the date of dismissal of the appeals. The Registry of the Tribunal wrongly listed as application in extension of stay order. In our considered view, the order dtd 24.3.2006 should be recalled and the appeal should be restored in its original number in the interest of justice. - Appeal restored. Issues:- Compliance with stay order- Restoration of appeal- Extension of stay order- Mislisting of applicationsCompliance with stay order:The case involved the appellant filing appeals with a stay petition in 2005 before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty, which was done by the appellant on 18.3.2006. However, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order on 24.3.2006. The appellant later filed applications for restoration of appeal, stating that they had complied with the stay order before the dismissal of the appeals. The Registry of the Tribunal had mistakenly treated the restoration applications as applications for extension of the stay order. After considering the facts and records, it was found that the appellant had indeed complied with the stay order before the dismissal of the appeals.Restoration of appeal:The appellant filed applications for restoration of appeal within two months from the date of dismissal of the appeals. The Registry's error in listing the restoration applications as extension applications for the stay order was noted. The Tribunal decided to recall the order of dismissal dated 24.3.2006 and restored the appeals in their original numbers in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found no fault on the part of the appellant and allowed the applications for restoration of appeals.Extension of stay order:The Tribunal had extended the period of stay order multiple times, inadvertently treating the applications for restoration of appeal as applications for extension of the stay order. Despite the confusion caused by the Registry's mislisting, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's compliance with the stay order and granted the restoration of appeals.Mislisting of applications:The Registry of the Mumbai Bench had mistakenly listed the applications for restoration of appeal as applications for extension of the stay order. This error led to confusion regarding the status of the appeals. However, upon closer examination, it was evident that the appellant had acted in accordance with the stay order requirements, and the mislisting was a procedural mistake.In conclusion, the Tribunal recalled the order of dismissal dated 24.3.2006, restored the appeals in their original numbers, and allowed the applications for restoration of appeals. The appellant's compliance with the stay order was acknowledged, and the confusion caused by the mislisting of applications was rectified in the interest of justice.