2013 (12) TMI 347 - AT - Central Excise

Application for Restoration Condonation of Delay - Held that - Delay of one day condoned The appellant is not vigilant to pursue its remedy - Merely filing the application for restoration of appeal, the appellant kept quiet to cause appearance and explain his case - for absence of the appellant, the delay condonation application was dismissed observing non-prosecution - The history of the case and absence of the appellant, clearly shows that the appellant is not keen except abusing the process of law making repeated prayer for restoration application dismissed Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, application for restoration, condonation of delay, abuse of process of law

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dealt with the issue of delay in filing the appeal and subsequent applications for restoration and condonation of delay. The appellant failed to appear and explain the delay adequately, resulting in dismissal of the appeal and stay applications. The appellant's excuse for non-appearance was related to a broken car, which was deemed insufficient by the Tribunal. Despite leniency shown earlier by the Bench, the appellant continued to show lack of diligence in pursuing the case, leading to repeated dismissal of applications for restoration. The Tribunal observed a pattern of non-vigilance on the part of the appellant, indicating an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, both the applications for restoration were dismissed due to non-prosecution, highlighting the importance of timely and diligent legal representation to avoid such dismissals.

The judgment emphasized the principle of natural justice and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal matters. Despite considering the restoration of the appeal earlier, the Tribunal found the appellant's repeated failure to appear and lack of diligence unacceptable, resulting in the dismissal of the applications. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need for parties to actively participate in legal proceedings and not misuse the process by repeatedly seeking restoration without valid reasons or diligent effort. The dismissal of the applications served as a reminder of the consequences of neglecting one's legal responsibilities and failing to comply with court directions, ultimately leading to unfavorable outcomes in the case.