Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 866 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - Exparte order - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that - According to the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the appellant, since in October 2011, their employee dealing with the excise matter had left the job without handing over all the papers lying with him, they were not aware of the dismissal of their appeal and they became aware about this only when the recovery proceedings were initiated in January, 2014 and at that stage only, after depositing the entire duty on 10.01.2014 they filed restoration application. There is no dispute that they subsequently have also paid the entire interest on duty as well as penalty and as such the requirement of section 35 F have been fully complied with. - Appeal restored.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of stay application for non-prosecution 2. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F 3. Restoration application filed by the appellant 4. Compliance with Section 35F requirements 5. Justification for delay in filing restoration application Analysis: 1. The appellant's stay application along with the appeal was dismissed ex parte due to non-prosecution, leading to a direction to deposit the entire duty demand confirmed, interest, and penalty. The appeal was subsequently dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F. The appellant later deposited the duty amount and filed a restoration application, citing lack of awareness about the dismissal until recovery proceedings were initiated in January 2014. 2. The restoration application was heard in May 2014, where the Tribunal dismissed it as interest and penalty had not been deposited. The appellant then fulfilled these requirements and submitted a fresh stay application in June 2014. An affidavit explaining the delay in filing the restoration application was also submitted, attributing it to an employee's departure in 2011, which led to a lack of attention to the Tribunal's orders. 3. The appellant's counsel argued that full compliance with Section 35F had been achieved by depositing the disputed amounts and provided genuine reasons for the delay in the restoration application. The respondent opposed the restoration, highlighting the significant time gap between the appeal dismissal and subsequent compliance. 4. After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's compliance with Section 35F and the genuine reasons for the delay. Citing a judgment from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that substantive rights of appeal should not be denied on technical grounds. Consequently, the restoration application was allowed, and the appeal was reinstated for further proceedings. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of dismissal, restoration, compliance with statutory provisions, and the Tribunal's decision based on the presented arguments and legal precedents.
|