2005 (12) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeals due to confusion in hearing date, rectification of pre-deposit order, reconsideration of ROM application.

In the judgment, the applicant sought restoration of appeals due to confusion regarding the hearing date, leading to dismissal for default. The appeals were listed for final hearing on a specific date, but the learned counsel was misinformed about the actual date, resulting in dismissal. Despite adjournments, no reply was filed. During the hearing, it was revealed that a Division Bench had issued an order regarding pre-deposit requirements, directing the applicant to deposit a specific amount towards duty and penalty. However, discrepancies were found between the original handwritten note and the typed order, leading to confusion and subsequent dismissal of appeals. The High Court's dismissal of a writ petition and the Tribunal's subsequent dismissal under Section 35F added to the complexity. A rectification application was made by the Revenue to address the mistake in the pre-deposit order, emphasizing the need for reconsideration based on the original note sheet signed by the Members.

Regarding the rectification of the pre-deposit order, the Tribunal directed the restoration of appeals and the reconsideration of the Revenue's rectification application before a specific Bench. The decision was made to place the rectification application before a Bench comprising specific Members for a thorough review in light of the original note sheet's content. The direction aimed to address the discrepancies in the pre-deposit order and ensure a fair reconsideration based on accurate information, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original handwritten note's instructions.

The judgment concluded by allowing the restoration application, citing sufficient cause for the appeals' reinstatement. The Registry was instructed to issue a notice of hearing for the rectification application at the Principal Bench once the designated Bench, including specific Members, was constituted. The decision aimed to facilitate a fair and transparent reconsideration process, ensuring that all relevant parties were given the opportunity to present their case effectively. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural accuracy and the need to rectify any discrepancies promptly to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.