2009 (7) TMI 933 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for restoration dismissed due to delay.
2. Lack of explanation for delay in approaching the Tribunal.
3. Grounds for filing restoration application.
4. Lack of disclosure regarding advocate's failure to appear.
5. Verification of facts in the application.
6. Exercise of discretion in condoning delay.
7. Advocate withdrawing appearance and subsequent application.

Analysis:

The judgment involves the dismissal of a restoration application due to a delay beyond the prescribed limitation period. The advocate for the appellant acknowledged the limitation period but failed to provide any separate application for condonation of delay or offer an explanation for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The sole ground disclosed for the restoration application was the advocate's inadvertent failure to notice and appear before the Tribunal on the relevant date, leading to the matter being unattended. However, the application did not provide details about the advocate's identity or the basis for the contention of the advocate's failure.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justifying any delay in approaching the Court or Tribunal within the prescribed time frame. It highlighted the need for parties to disclose facts that would warrant condonation of delay, as it involves taking away accrued rights from the opposite party. The discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously based on materials on record that justify the delay. In this case, the Tribunal found insufficient justification for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.

Furthermore, the application lacked proper verification of facts, as it failed to disclose the source of information regarding the advocate's failure to appear. The Tribunal stressed the importance of verifying facts received from others and the need for necessary corroboration to accept such information as true. Additionally, records revealed that the advocate in question had already withdrawn appearance, indicating discrepancies in the application and raising doubts about the validity of the grounds presented.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application, citing the lack of a compelling case for entertaining the application and condoning the delay. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to prescribed timelines, providing adequate justifications for delays, and ensuring the veracity of information presented in legal applications to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.