2015 (10) TMI 1953 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed as non maintainable - Held that - The last provision of Rule 11 gives power to the Tribunal to restore appeal/application on sufficient cause being shown. Case of the Revenue is that even if sufficient cause is shown the memorandum of appeal cannot be restored on an application filed after three months from the date of rejection in the light of case laws mentioned in Para 3 above. It is noted that for filing an appeal also, Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit an appeal so filed belatedly if sufficient cause is shown. In the present case also due to non-availability of copy of the show cause notice the applicant could not rectify the defect. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing restoration applications is condoned as the defects have now been removed. - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues involved: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-maintainability due to defects not being rectified within the specified time limit, application for restoration filed after the specified time period, power of the Tribunal to restore appeal/application on sufficient cause being shown, interpretation of Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed miscellaneous applications for restoration concerning Order No. A/11234-11235/WZB/AHD/2013 passed by the bench. The issue revolved around the appellant being directed to remove defects by a certain date, failing which the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the show cause notice copy was not readily available initially but was later obtained and submitted. Relying on Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was contended that since the defects were rectified, the appeals should be restored by condoning the delay in filing the applications.

3. The respondent's representative argued, citing relevant case laws, that restoration applications should be filed within a reasonable period of three months. The case laws cited emphasized the importance of timely restoration applications.

4. Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal delved into Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. This rule outlined the process for rejection or amendment of a memorandum of appeal and the subsequent restoration procedures. It was noted that the Tribunal has the authority to restore an appeal/application on sufficient cause being shown.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's argument regarding the necessity of filing restoration applications within a reasonable time frame, as highlighted by the case laws cited. However, considering the circumstances where the defects were rectified due to the non-availability of the show cause notice copy initially, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay in filing restoration applications. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled its previous order and directed the registry to admit the appeals for listing.

6. Ultimately, the restoration applications filed by the appellant were allowed under Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, signifying a successful outcome for the appellant in having their appeals restored.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision in the context of the restoration applications filed by the appellant.