2008 (10) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to negligence.
2. Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedural) Rules 1982.
3. Delay in filing the application for restoration.
4. Consideration of similar circumstances in previous cases.

Analysis:

1. The Applicant filed applications for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to negligence by the then counsel. The Applicant, an Apex Cooperative Society in Punjab, had a Stay Order on pre-deposit of dues till appeal disposal. The counsel's inaction led to the dismissal of the appeal. The proviso to Rule 20 of CESTAT Rules allows setting aside dismissal and restoring the appeal if a sufficient case for non-prosecution is shown. The Division Bench previously condoned delay in filing appeals under similar circumstances.

2. The Respondent argued that the previous decision was not applicable as the appeal was dismissed and communicated to the Applicant. The delay in filing the restoration application was not explained adequately. However, Rule 20 of CESTAT Rules allows for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, and the Division Bench had previously condoned delays in similar cases.

3. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Judge found that Rule 20 provides for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution. Considering the negligence of the counsel and the State Government undertaking Co-operative society status of the Applicant, the Judge deemed it a fit case for recalling the Order and restoring the appeal to its original number. The hearing was scheduled for a later date due to the appeal's year.

4. The Judge recalled the Order dated 12-7-2006 and restored the appeal, citing the negligence of the counsel and the State Government's involvement as key factors. The applications for restoration were allowed, and the hearing was set for a specific date. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court on 24-10-2008.