2002 (6) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Defective filing of appeals by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot.
2. Failure to cure defects in the appeals.
3. Application for restoration of appeals by the Commissioner.
4. Commissioner's persistent refusal to follow Tribunal's orders.
5. Interpretation of CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982 regarding filing of appeals.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot filed 16 defective appeals without the required documents. Despite directions to correct the defects, no efforts were made to do so. The Tribunal found the documents defective and the defects not cured, leading to the dismissal of the appeals under Rule 11 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

2. Subsequently, the Commissioner filed an application for restoration citing non-receipt of notices directing to cure defects. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner's failure to file necessary documents even during the restoration application. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's indifferent behavior and dismissed the restoration applications.

3. The Commissioner filed a fresh Miscellaneous Application for restoration, claiming non-receipt of earlier notices. However, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had not understood the previous orders and had not followed the prescribed procedures for filing appeals.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner consistently failed to read and comply with the Tribunal's orders, despite clear instructions. The Commissioner's office did not bother to understand the Tribunal's orders, leading to persistent filing of defective appeals.

5. The CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provide guidelines for filing appeals and empower the Tribunal to dismiss improperly filed appeals. The Tribunal allows opportunities to correct defects to ensure substantive justice is not denied due to procedural inaccuracies. However, in this case, the Commissioner's persistent refusal to follow procedures led to the dismissal of the restoration application.

6. Despite the Commissioner's previous successful filings, the Tribunal noted the recalcitrant attitude in this batch of appeals. The Tribunal reiterated that the appeals were not in proper form and dismissed the restoration application, finding no merit in it.