2005 (7) TMI 27 - HC - Central Excise

Application seeking restoration of the appeal rejected by Tribunal Fee of Rs. 500 was not paid by assessee for adjournment Mere non-compliance with procedural requirement could not have led to disposal of the main application Impugned order is set aside & application is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order, rejection of restoration application, rejection of adjournment request based on fee non-deposit, interpretation of Section 35B(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, effect of Public Notice No. 01 of 2005 on adjournment fee requirement, balancing procedural requirements with the need for justice in tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
The petitioners had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal against an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to pre-deposit a duty amount, failing which the appeals would be dismissed. Subsequently, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The petitioners sought restoration of the appeals, but the application was rejected. An adjournment request was also rejected by the Tribunal for not depositing a fee of Rs.500, leading to the rejection of the restoration application as well.

The Tribunal justified the rejection of the adjournment request based on Section 35B(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires a fee for certain applications. However, a Public Notice clarified that no fee was needed for adjournment requests. The petitioners argued that the adjournment application was wrongly rejected based on this notice, seeking to quash the order dated 14th January, 2005.

The High Court acknowledged that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the Act as the Public Notice was not available at the time. However, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural requirements, the Court quashed the order and restored the restoration application for further consideration. The Court criticized the Tribunal for prioritizing quick disposal over the essence of justice and directed the petitioners to appear for the hearing on a specified date.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the restoration application for a fair hearing. No costs were imposed in this judgment. The decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach where procedural rules are followed without compromising the principles of justice and fairness in tribunal proceedings.