2008 (9) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of the appeals - Commissioner of Central Excise imposed penalties - approach the Settlement Commission as per the provisions of Section 35PA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - applications were rejected under sub-section (7) of Section 32F for non-cooperation by the applicants - cases were sent back to the Tribunal - if no application under Section 32E of the Act had been made - Held that - applicants were pursuing the matter with their counsel and the counsel had returned the papers to them only in April, 2008 and they were all along under the impression that they could take steps for filing the ROA application at any point of time, as no period of limitation for filing a ROA application is prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - no statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for restoration of an appeal which has been dismissed - accordingly dismiss the ROA applications

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Filing of appeals before the Tribunal and subsequent withdrawal to approach the Settlement Commission.
3. Rejection of applications for non-cooperation and sending cases back to the Tribunal.
4. Delay in filing applications for restoration of appeals and the satisfaction of the bench regarding the reasonableness of the delay.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand and imposed penalties on various parties. The appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal and sought permission to withdraw the appeals to approach the Settlement Commission under Section 35PA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal granted permission, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Subsequently, the applications made to the Settlement Commission were rejected for non-cooperation by the applicants. The cases were then sent back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the Act, treating it as if no application had been made under Section 32E. The applicants received the order in December 2005 and filed applications for restoration of the appeals only in May 2008.

3. When questioned about the delay in taking steps after receiving the order from the Settlement Commission, the applicants explained that they were pursuing the matter with their counsel, who returned the papers to them in April 2008. The applicants believed there was no statutory limitation for filing a restoration application. However, the bench found the explanation unsatisfactory, emphasizing the need for the application to be filed within a reasonable period. Despite the absence of a prescribed limitation period, the bench must be satisfied with the timeliness of the application.

4. Due to the inadequacy of the explanation provided by the applicants and the unreasonable delay in filing the restoration applications, the bench concluded that the appeals were not suitable for restoration. As a result, the applications for restoration were dismissed. The decision highlighted the importance of timeliness in filing restoration applications, even in the absence of a specific statutory limitation.