Appeals Dismissed for Procedural Misstep: Importance of Court Permission in Refiling Emphasized to Prevent Abuse.

The HC dismissed the appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against CESTAT's order. The appellant withdrew previous appeals without seeking permission to file fresh ones, violating principles from the Sarguja Transport case. The appeals were dismissed for procedural non-compliance, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining court permission to prevent legal process abuse.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT order; Permission to withdraw earlier appeals and pursue rectification application; Dismissal of rectification application and filing of present appeals; Application of principles from Sarguja Transport case to withdrawal of appeals; Dismissal of appeals for not seeking or obtaining permission to file fresh appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order by CESTAT, New Delhi. The appellant had initially filed Central Excise Appeal Nos. 41 & 42 of 2018 but later sought permission to withdraw these appeals to pursue a rectification application. The rectification application was subsequently dismissed, leading the appellant to file the present appeals challenging the original CESTAT order. However, the appellant did not challenge the rejection of the rectification application but directly questioned the CESTAT order. The court highlighted the importance of seeking permission to withdraw appeals, citing the Supreme Court's observations in the "Sarguja Transport" case regarding the distinction between abandonment and withdrawal of suits. The Court emphasized that a litigant should obtain court permission to file a fresh appeal to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Moreover, the judgment discussed the applicability of the principles laid down in the Sarguja Transport case to appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was noted that since the appellant did not seek nor were granted permission to file an appeal before the Court, the present appeals were deemed liable to be dismissed. The Court concluded that the appeals failed on this ground and were accordingly dismissed, albeit without costs. The judgment underscores the significance of following proper legal procedures and obtaining necessary permissions when withdrawing appeals to maintain the integrity of the legal process and prevent misuse of judicial resources.

---