2007 (5) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.
2. Rejection of restoration application by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Challenge to the Commissioner's order dated 24-1-2007.
4. Consideration of the application for restoration of appeal by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Power of authorities to restore appeals dismissed for non-deposit of amounts.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed an appeal after a lapse of 7 years with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. They contended that they had deposited the amounts and sought remand of the matter. An affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay was filed, stating that the appellant firm had incurred losses and ceased production. The sole surviving partner was not aware of the order until 2005 and made arrangements to raise and deposit the amount.

2. The learned Consultant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to re-consider the restoration application following the High Court's direction. Referring to a Tribunal order, the Consultant sought remand of the case for decision on merits. The departmental view was reiterated by the JDR.

3. After careful consideration, it was noted that the High Court had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the restoration application, which was rejected by the Commissioner. The application for condonation of delay was allowed as there was no delay in terms of the impugned order. The appellants had deposited the amounts and explained the reason for non-deposit, citing the death of the person in charge of the firm.

4. The Tribunal's order in a similar case was referenced, emphasizing that where a proper explanation is given, delay in deposit can be condoned. Therefore, the delay in deposit in the present case was condoned, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration within four months from the receipt of the order.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing appeals, the power of authorities to restore dismissed appeals, and the significance of providing valid explanations for delays in compliance with orders. The decision emphasizes the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in such matters.