2015 (10) TMI 1296 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that - Having regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 10.4.2014, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any serious legal infirmity. However, considering the fact that the petitioners do not desire to contest the appeals on merits and only seek to avail of the benefit of option of reduced penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules as the case may be, which, according to the petitioners, was not given to them at the relevant point of time, this court is of the view that it would be in the interests of justice, if the appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal for deciding the same on the limited question - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissing appeals for want of prosecution.
2. Challenge to the order on restoration application seeking to restore the dismissed appeals.
3. Interpretation of the benefit of reduced penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

1. The petition challenged the order of CESTAT dated 10.4.2014, which dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution. The petitioners sought restoration of the appeals, which were dismissed for default. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was confusion due to similar appeals by the company and the desire to avail the benefit of reduced penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The respondent's counsel opposed, stating the payment made was for a different demand. The court noted the submissions and observed that the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and refused restoration. However, considering the petitioner's intention not to contest on merits but seek the benefit of reduced penalty, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and restored the appeals for limited consideration on the benefit of reduced penalty.

2. The court examined the grounds for dismissal by CESTAT and the petitioner's argument for restoration based on confusion and the desire for reduced penalty. Despite finding no serious legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order, the court acknowledged the petitioner's intention and decided in favor of restoring the appeals for a limited consideration on the benefit of reduced penalty under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The court emphasized the interest of justice in restoring the appeals for this specific purpose.

3. The court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of CESTAT, and restored the appeals for the Tribunal to decide on whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. The court directed the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the appeals within two months from the date of the court's order, considering the original filing date of the appeals in 2006. This comprehensive judgment addressed the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, focusing on the specific issue of the benefit of reduced penalty sought by the petitioners.