2013 (7) TMI 470 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Application Stay Application Held that(ex-partie) - Neither before limitation nor after expiry thereof appellant seems to be vigilant to pursue its appeal remedy - MA (COD), stay application and appeal are dismissed. Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Dismissal of appeal due to lack of vigilance in pursuing remedy, application of law of limitation, levy of penalty, dismissal of MA (COD), Stay Applications, and appeals.

Analysis:
1. Dismissal of appeal due to lack of vigilance in pursuing remedy: The judgment highlights the importance of being vigilant in pursuing legal remedies. The absence of the appellant during the hearing, coupled with the failure to file the appeal in time, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judges emphasized that being vigilant is crucial in the eyes of the law, as the law of limitation is not meant to keep litigation open-ended. The appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal remedy resulted in the dismissal of the case.

2. Application of law of limitation: The judgment underscores the significance of the doctrine of res judicata in bringing litigation to an end by prescribing limitations. The law of limitation serves the purpose of making the other party litigation-free and saving the court's time. In this case, the appellant's failure to act within the prescribed limitations led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judges clarified that neither before nor after the expiry of the limitation period did the appellant show vigilance in pursuing the appeal remedy, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the case.

3. Levy of penalty: The judgment also addresses the issue of the levy of a penalty in the fitness of circumstances described in the adjudication order. The judges noted that the imposition of the penalty was warranted based on the details provided in the adjudication order. By dismissing the appeal and related applications, the judges aimed to serve the interest of justice, particularly considering the Revenue's grievance if the matter was kept pending in the Tribunal for an extended period.

4. Dismissal of MA (COD), Stay Applications, and appeals: The final decision of the Tribunal was to dismiss all MA (COD), Stay Applications, and appeals due to the appellant's lack of vigilance, failure to adhere to the law of limitation, and the warranted levy of penalty. The judgment emphasizes the importance of diligence and timely action in pursuing legal remedies to avoid adverse consequences such as dismissal of appeals and related applications.