2022 (11) TMI 795 - HC - Central Excise

CESTAT dismissal upheld for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. Lack of justification cited. No substantial legal question.

M/s. Kali Aerated Water Works Represented by its Proprietor K.P.D. Rajendran Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax, The Commissioner of Central Excise NGO 'A' Colony, Tirunelveli

M/s. Kali Aerated Water Works Represented by its Proprietor K.P.D. Rajendran Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax, The Commissioner of Central Excise ... Issues Involved:Challenge to orders passed by CESTAT dismissing applications for restoration of appeals due to non-compliance with pre-deposit of duty within stipulated period.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to CESTAT orders dismissing restoration applicationsThe appeals filed by the appellant challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Madurai. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make pre-deposit amounts within a specified period, failing which the appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, restoration applications were filed after 7 years, contending non-intentional non-compliance and subsequent deposit of amounts. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, leading to the filing of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Tribunal to restore appealsThe appellant argued for restoration based on a Supreme Court judgment favoring exemption due to being a small-scale industry. However, the Standing Counsel contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to restore appeals after a final order. Citing a previous judgment, it was argued that once a final order is passed, the Tribunal becomes Functus officio and cannot restore the appeal. Additionally, the delay of 7 years in filing restoration applications was deemed unjustified.Issue 3: Merits of restoration applicationsThe Court observed that no substantial question of law was involved in the case, and the arguments mainly revolved around the facts. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss restoration applications was upheld, considering the lack of justification for the delay in filing, the relatively small amount involved, and the absence of legal grounds for restoration. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed without costs.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to CESTAT orders, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to restore appeals, and the merits of the restoration applications, providing a detailed overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court.