2017 (7) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing submissions on the application E/ROA/30664/2016 (in Appeal No.E/411/2006.). a) The Appellate Tribunal vide its Miscellaneous Order No.M/30100/2016 dated 27.07.2016 had dismissed the restoration Application filed by the applicants bearing Application No.24143/2014 in Appeal No.411/2006. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant solely on the ground that the Appellant has filed the Restoration application after the expiry of 7 years from the date of obtaining clearance from the Committee of Disputes (COD) and hence, there is no merit in the application. b) Dispute relates to liability of excise duty on ethanol blended petrol made from motor spirit and Ethanol during the period from 01.07.2004 to 03.08.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the Tribunal informing that case records pertaining to Appeal E/411/2006 had been weeded out and requested entire set of case records along with copy of final order for reconstructions and listing of their applications. e) Due to a wrong impression on their part, they filed a fresh application No.24143/2013 on 30.09.2014 seeking restoration of appeal. f) However, Tribunal has ignored the first ROA application dated 14.12.2007 and dismissed the appeal on grounds of enormous delay. g) There is thus a mistake apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified and the appeal E/411/2006 to be restored. 3. The following submissions were made by the Ld. Advocate in respect of application E/ROM/30658/2016 (in Appeal No.E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'ble Supreme Court. Hence the finding of delayed filing of ROA Application, even after obtaining COD clearance is incorrect. vii. There is thus a mistake apparent on record which needs to be rectified and thee appeal E/822/2003 restored as a consequence. viii. It is however conceded that these facts were not brought to the knowledge of the Bench which had heard their earlier application. 4. On behalf of the department Ld. AR Shri Guna Ranjan opposes these applications and submits that the dismissal of the appeals for delay is just and proper and does not call for interference. 5.1 Heard both sides and have gone though the facts. 5.2 We intend to adjudge the merits of each of these miscellaneous application separately. 6.1 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting to Appeal E/411/2006) 7.2 In respect of Appeal E/411/2006 it now emerges that Applicant had already filed a ROA Application in 2007 itself, on 14.12.2007, which was never taken up for hearing. 7.3 Only the subsequent ROA application filed on 30.09.2014 was heard and decided in the miscellaneous order dated 26.07.2016, of the Tribunal, even though the ROA application filed on 14.12.2007 was still pending. 7.4 It is not disputed that CESTAT Registry vide later dated 14.10.2014 had requested the applicant to again submit four sets of the Appeal along with ROA Application to re-constructed file as the appeal papers filed earlier had been weeded out. 7.5. Appellant however, mistook the letter dated 14.02.2012 and filed the secon....