2004 (4) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with Stay Order

In this case, the main issue involved was the application for restoration of appeals that were dismissed for non-compliance with a Stay Order issued by the Tribunal. The appellant, M/s. Kanchan Industries, had deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal but failed to appear during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. The key argument presented by the appellant was that they had complied with the Stay Order by depositing the required amount and had informed the Tribunal accordingly. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Ms. Charul Barnwal, opposed the restoration application, highlighting the delay in filing the application and citing a previous Tribunal case regarding the time limit for restoration applications.

The appellant's representative, Shri B.L. Narasimhan, argued that M/s. Kanchan Industries had deposited the specified amounts as directed by the Tribunal in the Stay Order and had informed the Mumbai Bench about the compliance. However, during the hearing at the Tribunal in New Delhi, no one appeared on their behalf, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The appellant claimed that the compliance reports filed with the Mumbai Bench were not considered during the hearing in Delhi, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals. They also mentioned that the delay in filing the restoration application was due to misplacing the order of dismissal by the CEGAT.

On the other hand, the respondent, Ms. Charul Barnwal, argued against the restoration application, pointing out that the appeals were dismissed in 1998, and the restoration application was filed after a significant delay of almost 3 and a half years. She contended that the reasons provided by the applicants for the delay were not satisfactory, merely stating that the final order had been misplaced. Ms. Barnwal referred to a previous Tribunal case, B.M. Auto India v. CCE, which emphasized the need for restoration applications to be filed within a reasonable period, even though no specific time limit was provided.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal, comprising S/Shri V.K. Agrawal and P.S. Bajaj, acknowledged that the applicants had indeed complied with the Stay Order issued by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed based on non-compliance with the Stay Order, which was no longer valid since the applicants had deposited the required amount. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to recall the Final Order dismissing the appeals and restored them to their original numbers for regular hearing on a specified date.