2017 (1) TMI 871 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeals - delay of 776 days in rectifying objections - Held that - the Registry dismissed this appeal for want of compliance with procedural formalities after giving an opportunity to the Revenue to so comply with the same. Thus, after lodging this appeal on 2nd April, 2014, no steps were taken even after sufficient time was granted and additionally to the Revenue - Now, waking up after more than two and half years after such a dismissal and seeking restoration of the appeal would not be fair and proper. It is clear that there is no cause shown, much less some change in the panel of advocates. No details are provided and a vague statement is made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-support. The delay of 776 days remains unexplained. The cause shown is not bona fide and reasonable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in compliance with procedural formalities leading to dismissal of appeal.
2. Motion to set aside the dismissal order after a significant delay.
3. Lack of sufficient cause shown for setting aside the dismissal order.
4. Advocates' responsibility in ensuring procedural compliance.
5. Dismissal of appeal due to unexplained delay and lack of bona fide cause.

Analysis:

1. The appeal in question was lodged in the High Court Registry on 2nd April, 2014. However, the Revenue failed to comply with procedural formalities and remove office objections, leading to a conditional order dismissing the appeal. Despite the belated filing of the appeal, the delay was initially condoned. The Court noted that the Revenue did not take any steps to address the office objections even after the dismissal order on 20th April, 2016.

2. Subsequently, a Notice of Motion was filed to set aside the conditional order after a significant delay of two and a half years. The Court observed that the affidavit-in-support did not provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The lack of proactive steps by the Revenue to rectify the situation in a timely manner was evident, leading to further delays in the legal process.

3. The Court emphasized the importance of demonstrating a legitimate cause for seeking the restoration of the appeal after such a prolonged period. It was noted that the vague statements in the affidavit-in-support failed to justify the delay adequately. The Court highlighted the need for parties to diligently pursue their legal matters and not unduly delay the proceedings without valid reasons.

4. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the role of advocates in ensuring compliance with procedural rules and deadlines. It was noted that advocates should utilize registered clerks to monitor pending matters and ensure timely actions. The Court expressed disappointment in the lack of diligence on the part of Revenue officials and their advocates, emphasizing the need for accountability and responsibility in legal proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the Court found the delay of 776 days unexplained and deemed the cause shown for seeking restoration of the appeal as neither bona fide nor reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the Notice of Motion was also dismissed in light of the appeal's dismissal. The judgment underscored the importance of timely and diligent legal actions to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.