2018 (5) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing ROA Application - Held that - the reason stated for delay is very reasonable, accordingly we condone the delay in filing the ROA application. Hence, the COD application is allowed. Restoration of appeal - Held that - the order was submission only on the argument of the learned AR, however the grounds of appeal made by the appellant was not touched upon. Therefore the order does not appear to be speaking order - the order passed by this Tribunal without considering the grounds of appeal is required to be recalled - appeal restored.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeal and condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
The applicants filed two applications, one for restoration of appeal and another for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous application. The advocate on record had not communicated regarding the tribunal proceedings, leading to an ex-parte decision. The advocate's fault resulted in the order being passed ex-parte, without considering the submission made in the appeal. The applicant faced financial crisis, leading to a delay of 127 days in filing the miscellaneous application. The appeal was summarily disposed of without considering the grounds of appeal, as per the submissions made by the appellant. The Tribunal recalled the order and restored the appeal for regular hearing, emphasizing the need to consider the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, as per the judgment in Bazaji Steel Re-rolling Mills vs. CCE. The delay in filing the ROA application was condoned, and the COD application was allowed.

The Revenue argued that the order passed by the Tribunal was on merit and cannot be recalled, citing various judgments. However, the Tribunal found that the order did not consider the grounds of appeal made by the appellant, making it necessary to recall the order and restore the appeal for proper consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the appeal filed by the assessee, even in cases of non-prosecution, as per the judgment in Bazaji Steel Re-rolling Mills vs. CCE. The Tribunal did not delve into the judgments cited by the Revenue, recalling the order and allowing the ROA application. The appeal was listed for regular hearing following the restoration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the condonation of delay in filing the ROA application and restored the appeal for regular hearing, emphasizing the need to consider the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. The order passed without considering the appellant's submissions was recalled, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment highlighted the importance of due process and proper consideration of the grounds of appeal in legal proceedings.