2017 (7) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Held that - it would be unfair and unjust that Appellants suffer due to non hearing of their earlier ROA Application filed in 2007, for no fault of theirs. In any case, the earlier application had been dismissed on the ground of considerable delay in filing ROA application - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeal E/411/2006 dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Restoration of appeal E/822/2003 dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of appeal E/411/2006
The appellant filed a restoration application after the expiry of 7 years from obtaining clearance from the Committee of Disputes (COD). The dispute involved excise duty on ethanol blended petrol. The Board later issued an exemption notification clarifying the duty liability. The appellant filed a restoration application in 2007, but it was not heard. The Tribunal rejected a subsequent restoration application in 2016 due to a delay of 7 years. The appellant argued that the first application was ignored, leading to the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and restored the appeal, directing the Registry to list it for hearing promptly.

Issue 2: Restoration of appeal E/822/2003
The dispute centered around whether license fees on property usage should be included in the transaction value for central excise duty. The Committee of Disputes (COD) clearance was pending when the appeal was dismissed. The COD mechanism was later disbanded. The appellant filed a restoration application in 2014, which was dismissed in 2016 due to a 7-year delay. The Tribunal found that the COD clearance was never received, contrary to the impression given. The appellant's argument that the delay was due to pending COD clearance was accepted. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and restored the appeal, emphasizing that the facts were not presented during the earlier proceedings.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal restored both appeals, recognizing mistakes in dismissing them and directing prompt listing for hearing. The judgments highlight the importance of procedural fairness and rectifying errors to ensure justice in legal proceedings.