2009 (7) TMI 805 - HC - Central Excise

Central excise duty and a penalty - appeal dismissed for non-compliance u/s. 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Application for restoration of appeal - after a period of more than ten years - Held that - reflects the casual attitude of the petitioner-Company and shows that the petitioner-Company is not interested in the proceedings - petition rejected

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Application No. E/ROA/1164 of 2008 in Appeal No. E/931 of 1997.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Company engaged in the manufacture of laboratory glassware items, faced proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department due to irregularities in maintaining books of accounts and payment of central excise duty following a surprise visit on 11-10-1994. A show cause notice was issued on 25-1-1995, and after the petitioner's reply, the Commissioner passed an order on 14-2-1997 for recovery of central excise duty and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner appealed this order before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which directed a deposit and later dismissed the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 12-12-1997. Subsequently, a restoration application was filed on 28-11-2008 after more than ten years, leading to the dismissal of the application by the Appellate Tribunal on 16-4-2009.

The High Court noted the significant delay of over ten years in filing the restoration application, emphasizing that reviving the appeal after such a prolonged period would be akin to reviving a long-dead matter. Referring to a previous decision, the Court highlighted the casual approach of the petitioner and their lack of interest in the proceedings. The Court held that the decision from the previous case, which the petitioner sought to rely on, was not applicable due to the substantial delay in the present matter. Considering the overall facts, the Court agreed with the Appellate Tribunal's decision to dismiss the restoration application, finding no grounds for interference.

In conclusion, the High Court summarily rejected the petition, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for restoration of the appeal, citing the significant delay in filing the restoration application and the lack of interest displayed by the petitioner in the proceedings. No costs were awarded in this matter.