2013 (12) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of Appeal Held that - The first application for restoration of appeal was dismissed and that order was upheld by their Lordship by an order dated 07.10.2004, which we were informed was maintained by the Apex Court in an SLP fled by the applicant Thus, the question of restoring Appeal in the Tribunal s record does not arise inasmuch as, its dismissal has been upheld by the highest court there was no merit in the second application filed by the applicant Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeal application.
2. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance.
3. Challenge to impugned order.
4. Upholding of previous dismissal order.
5. Merits of the second restoration application.

Analysis:

1. Restoration of Appeal Application:
The judgment involves the restoration of an appeal application, which was initially dismissed by the bench. The applicant had filed an application for restoration of appeal, but the bench dismissed it as per the records. The subsequent proceedings and directions from the court led to the consideration of the restoration application.

2. Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Compliance:
The appeal in question was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal earlier due to non-compliance with a previous order. The court noted that the appellant's actions seemed to be aimed at delaying the case proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The dismissal was based on the grounds of non-compliance with the order for waiver of pre-deposit.

3. Challenge to Impugned Order:
The appellant had challenged the impugned order dated 08.06.2001 passed by the appellate Tribunal in a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court decision upheld the dismissal of the appeal, citing the appellant's intention to delay the case proceedings as a reason for the dismissal.

4. Upholding of Previous Dismissal Order:
The judgment highlighted that the previous order dismissing the appeal was upheld by the highest court after the appellant's challenge. The Supreme Court, in an SLP filed by the applicant, maintained the decision of the bench to dismiss the appeal, indicating a finality to the matter.

5. Merits of the Second Restoration Application:
The court, after considering the entire history of the case and the previous dismissal upheld by the highest court, concluded that there were no merits in the second restoration application filed by the applicant. The court expressed that allowing the applicant to continue litigating the same issue repeatedly was not justified, leading to the dismissal of the second restoration application.

In conclusion, the judgment ultimately dismissed the restoration application based on the previous dismissal of the appeal and the lack of merits in the second restoration attempt. The court emphasized the finality of the previous decisions and the need to avoid repetitive litigation on the same issue.