2007 (1) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal and listing for final hearing based on High Court's order.
2. Commissioner's contention of delay and lapse in restoration process.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the restoration of an appeal after the High Court directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specific amount and produce proof of such deposit. The Tribunal passed a Miscellaneous Order restoring the appeal to its original number based on the High Court's order. The appellants had complied with the High Court's directions by depositing the required amount and informing the Registry immediately. However, there was a delay in listing the appeal for final hearing due to a lapse on the part of the Registry. The Commissioner contested the restoration, claiming that the Chennai Bench should have handled the restoration application and that the delay of 7 years cannot be condoned.

2. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal clarified that there was no mistake in restoring the appeal as per the High Court's order. The stay application and appeal were initially dismissed for non-deposit of amounts, which led to the appellants challenging it before the High Court. The High Court, in response, directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits upon proof of deposit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants had fulfilled the High Court's requirements by depositing the amounts and notifying the Registry promptly. The Tribunal deemed the restoration as per the High Court's order and found no grounds for rectification. The delay caused by the Registry's failure to list the appeal promptly was not a valid reason for rectification, as there was no mistake in the restoration process. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's application, stating that there was no merit in it, and scheduled the appeal for final hearing on a specific date.

This detailed analysis highlights the restoration process of the appeal, the High Court's directive, the compliance by the appellants, the Registry's delay, and the Tribunal's decision to reject the Commissioner's contention of delay and lapse in the restoration process.