2008 (10) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of appeal - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982

Summary

Issues:
1. Late filing of restoration applications after the dismissal of appeals.
2. Applicability of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for restoration of appeals dismissed for default.
3. Consideration of sufficient cause for non-appearance in restoration applications.
4. Evaluation of the appellant's explanation for non-compliance with the orders.
5. Decision on the restoration applications.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with two cases where restoration applications were filed after a considerable delay following the dismissal of the appeals. The orders in question required the appellant to deposit specific amounts and report compliance within set deadlines, failing which the appeals were dismissed in default.

2. Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 allows for the dismissal of appeals for default. The rule provides a provision for restoration if the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal with sufficient cause for non-appearance. Although the rule typically applies to appeals dismissed for non-appearance, the Tribunal holds the inherent power to restore appeals dismissed in default for any reason.

3. The Tribunal emphasizes that applications for restoration must be made within a reasonable time frame. In this case, the four-year delay in filing the restoration applications is deemed unreasonable, despite the appellant's argument of financial constraints preventing compliance with the orders.

4. The appellant claimed to have managed funds later, depositing a significant amount in connection with another appeal. However, the Tribunal found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the appellant failed to act on the orders until the duty demand subject to the appeals was adjusted against the amount deposited in the other case. The Tribunal expressed skepticism regarding the appellant's ability to procure funds selectively.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, citing the appellant's delay in taking action, lack of satisfactory explanation for non-compliance, and the timing of compliance only after the duty demand adjustment. The judgment reflects the Tribunal's reluctance to grant restoration based on the appellant's actions and explanations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the restoration applications was based on the unreasonable delay in filing, lack of satisfactory explanation for non-compliance, and the appellant's actions regarding fund management. The judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance and providing valid justifications for seeking restoration in legal proceedings.