2003 (5) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. Delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal.
3. Applicability of reasonable time-limit for filing the application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicant, represented by an advocate, sought restoration on the grounds that the final order was not received or misplaced, leading to no action being taken earlier. The consultant handling the matter had passed away, and the files were returned to the applicant in 2002. The applicant believed the appeal was still pending until they discovered it had been dismissed for default. The advocate argued that the Tribunal should decide on merits rather than dismiss for default, citing relevant judgments. The respondent opposed, stating the final order was sent to both the applicant and their advocate, and the delay of over 4 1/2 years in filing the restoration application was unjustified. The Tribunal noted the lack of explanation for the delay and emphasized the need for vigilance on the part of the appellant in tracking their appeal.

2. The issue of delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal was crucial in this judgment. The Tribunal observed that the final order dismissing the appeal was passed in 1997 and forwarded to both the applicant and the advocate. Despite the applicant not specifically denying receipt of the order, they failed to explain the delay of over 4 1/2 years in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of being vigilant in monitoring appeals and emphasized the need for a reasonable time limit for such applications, even though no specific time limit was prescribed in the rules. Citing previous judgments, including one by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal stressed the principle that every authority must act within a reasonable period, and parties seeking relief must do so promptly.

3. The judgment also addressed the applicability of a reasonable time limit for filing the application for restoration of appeal. While acknowledging the absence of a prescribed time limit in the rules, the Tribunal held that a reasonable time limit must be implied. Relying on precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of moving the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time. In this case, the Tribunal found that the delay of over 4 1/2 years in seeking restoration of the appeal was unreasonable and led to the rejection of the applicant's application. The judgment underscored the principle that authorities must act promptly and parties must approach for relief within a reasonable timeframe.