2008 (3) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Application for rectification of mistake - Revenue seeks to bring on record a fraudulent application of the respondent for restoration of appeal, as the signature of the respondent, on restoration application was not tallying with the signatures available with records of the department - If the revenue feels that the signatures are not genuine, they should file proper complaint before the competent court - present application is beyond the time limit of 6 months and hence cannot be considered

Summary

Issues:
1. Fraudulent application for restoration of appeal based on disputed signature.
2. Pre-deposit of duty demand and waiver of penalty.
3. Dismissal of miscellaneous application for deferment of hearing.
4. Rectification of mistake application based on mismatched signatures.
5. Allegations of forgery and fraudulent documents.
6. Denial of forgery and need for establishment of fraud by the revenue.
7. Consideration of application beyond the statutory time limit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue challenging a restoration application by the respondent due to a disputed signature. The respondent was ordered to pre-deposit 50% of the duty demand, and after restoration, the pre-deposit was waived. The revenue claimed that the restoration application was fraudulent based on a mismatch in signatures, supported by a report from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.

2. The Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous application for deferment of hearing as the respondent did not dispute the signature on the stay application. The revenue then filed a rectification of mistake application, which was also dismissed, stating that the revenue did not challenge the restoration application based on the disputed signature.

3. The respondent's advocate denied the forgery allegations, stating that no fraud was committed as the signature on the restoration application belonged to the respondent. The advocate argued that the revenue needed to establish forgery in the proper court, and the Tribunal was not the appropriate authority for such determinations.

4. The Tribunal found no evidence of forgery and noted that the revenue did not dispute the signatures on the appeal and stay application. It emphasized that without a proper court ruling on the disputed signatures, the Tribunal could not determine the authenticity of the restoration application's signature. The Tribunal differentiated the case from precedent where the appellant admitted to forged signatures.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, citing lack of merit and the application being beyond the statutory time limit for filing. The Tribunal highlighted the need for proper legal proceedings to establish forgery before the court could consider such claims.