2023 (6) TMI 1344 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Dismisses Restoration Application Citing Negligence and Delay in Filing Without Sufficient Cause.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal due to negligence and an inordinate delay in filing. The ... Seeking restoration of appeal adjudication of simultaneous remedies against the same impugned order at two forums - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal dismissed their appeal observing that they were pursuing remedy in both the forums; later the High Court dismissed their appeal on the ground that alternative remedy was available. After dismissal of the appeal by High Court, the appellant should have approached this Tribunal immediately or within a reasonable period bringing the order of the High Court and seeking restoration of appeal. Since, 4 years have been passed since passing of the Tribunal’s order, there are no merit in the ROA application being marred with negligence. No plausible reason has been submitted by the Applicant justifying the cause of delay. In more or less in similar circumstances, this Tribunal in M/S. NATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & CENTRAL GST, BHOPAL [2022 (6) TMI 163 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] rejecting the application for restoration on account of inordinate delay observed The appellant is already been observed to be negligent and thus he is held to not to be entitled for the discretionary relief. In the given circumstances, under no stretch of imagination there could be a justification to file an application at the sweet will of the applicant. The miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal is dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal, the availability of alternative remedies, negligence on the part of the appellant, and the delay in filing the restoration application.Restoration of Appeal:The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had observed that pursuing remedies in both forums simultaneously is not permissible. The High Court later dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that an alternative remedy was available. The appellant claimed they were unaware of the dismissal order and only found out about it in 2021, leading to the filing of the restoration application.Availability of Alternative Remedies:The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies. The court held that there were no legal infirmities justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dismissal was based on the lack of illegality or arbitrariness warranting court intervention.Negligence and Delay:The Revenue objected to the restoration application, citing negligence on the part of the appellant. It was noted that the appellant did not inform the High Court about the pending appeal before the Tribunal. The application for restoration was filed four years after the dismissal order, and even after the High Court's decision, the appellant did not approach the Tribunal promptly. The Tribunal found no merit in the restoration application due to the significant delay and lack of plausible reasons justifying the delay.Judicial Observations:The Tribunal, considering the submissions from both sides, highlighted the negligence and inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of bonafides and diligence on the part of the party seeking relief. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision and held that the application for restoration should have been filed within a reasonable period. Due to the negligence and lack of sufficient cause for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal, citing negligence, inordinate delay, and lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant's failure to promptly approach the Tribunal after the High Court's decision led to the dismissal of the restoration application. The importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings was underscored in the judgment.