2018 (8) TMI 2097 - AT - Central Excise

Seeking restoration of appeal - inadvertent mistake is prayed to be considered as sufficient reason for restoring the impugned appeal - HELD THAT - It is settled principle of law for condonation of delay that a sufficient reasonable caused has to be shown by the applicant while praying for the same. Apparently and admittedly the only reason cited is unability to make any alternate arrangement for appointing Counsel in this appeal. The same is impressed upon as an inadvertent mistake. Keeping in view the same and the fact that sufficient cause and reasonable time are the expression which are found in various statutes. There cannot be a straight jacket formula for accepting or rejecting application furnished for delay caused in taking steps. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal and recalling of order dated 22nd December 2016 in Appeal No.E-1456/2018.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Misc application for the restoration of an appeal and recalling of an order dated 22nd December 2016 in Appeal No.E-1456/2018. The applicant's counsel argued that an inadvertent mistake was the reason for not meeting the timeline set by the bench for filing the impugned ROA. The counsel contended that there is no specific time limit for such applications and requested the restoration of the appeal based on the inadvertent mistake. The respondent's counsel, however, objected to the restoration, citing the lack of a reasonable cause. It was highlighted that the appeal was initially filed by Mr. Pankaj Malik, who later withdrew his authority, yet filed the impugned application himself. The respondent relied on a previous decision to support the dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal, after hearing both counsels, emphasized the requirement of a sufficient reasonable cause for condonation of delay in such matters. It was noted that the only reason provided for the delay was the inability to make alternate arrangements for appointing counsel. The Tribunal opined that this reason could not be considered a sufficient reasonable explanation. Reference was made to decisions by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which emphasized the need for filing restoration applications within a reasonable time frame. Since the application did not offer a satisfactory reason for the delay, the Tribunal found the ROA application filed by the applicant unsustainable. The judgment highlighted that while there is no strict formula for accepting or rejecting applications due to delays, the requirement of a sufficient cause and reasonable time must be met. Consequently, the application for restoration of appeal was dismissed.