2009 (4) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Restoration Application Due to Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order

ABLAZE PROCESS SYSTEM (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's restoration application for non-compliance with a pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, ... Restoration of appeal after 10 years - appeal before tribunal - held that - Applicant having allowed the appeal to remain buried for a period of 10 years cannot seek revival of the same after such a long gap, especially when the appellant did not bother to get the appeal revived after its dismissal by showing their bona fide and depositing the directed amount in question. To revive the appeal after a gap of more than 10 years is like putting life to a body lying dead for 11 years - Where after taking note of the provisions of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was observed that though the said Rule provides for restoration of the appeal only when dismissed for non-prosecution but Tribunal can restore appeals dismissed for non-compliance, provided there exists reasonable cause. After observing so, period of four years from the dismissal of appeal was found to be unreasonable and the application of restoration was rejected. Issues:1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit order under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Filing restoration application after a significant delay of over 10 years.3. Justifiability of seeking revival of appeal based on a subsequent favorable Supreme Court judgment.4. Consideration of judicial discipline and timeliness in filing restoration applications.5. Application of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in restoration cases.Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants failing to comply with a pre-deposit order directing them to pay Rs. 11 Lakhs out of a total confirmed duty amount of Rs. 44.53 Lakhs. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellants did not make the required deposit, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellant filed a restoration application after more than 10 years, citing a favorable Supreme Court judgment in a similar dispute. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had ample time to revive the appeal earlier but failed to do so. The delay of over a decade was considered unreasonable, and the appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed unacceptable.3. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need to fight one's case diligently. The appellant's reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment was rejected as insufficient grounds for reviving the appeal after such a prolonged period of inaction on their part.4. The Tribunal highlighted the principle of judicial discipline and the necessity for timely actions in legal matters. It was noted that the appellant's casual attitude, as evidenced by the significant delay in filing the restoration application, could not be condoned, especially considering the lack of challenge to the Tribunal's original dismissal order.5. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision regarding the application of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in restoration cases. The Tribunal clarified that while appeals dismissed for non-compliance could be restored with a reasonable cause, a delay of four years was deemed unreasonable in a similar case, leading to the rejection of the restoration application.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in restoring the appeal dismissed in 1997 due to non-compliance and rejected the appellant's restoration application based on the significant delay and lack of valid justifications for the prolonged inaction.