2007 (10) TMI 500 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake application filed by the Revenue regarding penalties imposed on applicants.
2. Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with deposit order.
3. Interpretation of Section 35C(2) in relation to the restoration order.

Analysis:
1. The rectification of mistake application was filed by the Revenue concerning penalties imposed on the applicants. The Tribunal had restored the appeal of two applicants, observing that dismissal for non-compliance was not warranted as no pre-deposit was directed against them. The Revenue contended that since M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. did not deposit the required amount, the appeal of the other applicants should also be dismissed. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that penalties on the other applicants were waived, and their appeal could not be dismissed for non-deposit by M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

2. The appeal was initially dismissed for non-compliance with a deposit order issued to M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. However, the Tribunal restored the appeals of other applicants as no pre-deposit was directed against them. The Revenue's argument that non-deposit by M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. should lead to the dismissal of all appeals was rejected by the Tribunal, emphasizing that penalties on the other applicants were waived.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 35C(2) concerning the restoration order. It was clarified that Section 35C(1) pertains to the final order confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision appealed against. The Tribunal emphasized that the restoration order was not a final order under Section 35C(1), and therefore, the provisions of Section 35C(2) did not apply. The Revenue's rectification of mistake application was deemed meritless and subsequently rejected by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of rectification of mistake application, dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with deposit order, and the interpretation of Section 35C(2) in the context of the restoration order.