2019 (4) TMI 895 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake/restoration of appeal - Held that - The averment in the Misc. Application found to be mis-leading and incorrect inasmuch as the Revenue has filed two appeals as required under Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 on the same day i.e. 01.08.2016 for the amounts ₹ 14,28,748/- and ₹ 50,49,547/- as the impugned order-in-appeal disposed two orders-in-original. The appeals are allocated different numbers viz. E/86987/2016 and E/86988/2016. Therefore, the present Misc. Application filed by the Revenue is infructuous. We are also constrained to mention that this Bench has been constituted specifically at 1430 hrs. to-day by the Hon ble President, since the Members are assigned to different Benches, only for the purpose of disposal of ROM applications filed. This sort of frivolous application consumes the time of the Tribunal and retards the pace of disposal of appeals pending before the Tribunal. ROM/ROA is dismissed being infructuous.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order
2. Restoration of an appeal dismissed by withdrawal
3. Misleading information in the miscellaneous application
4. Imposition of cost on the erring officer for filing frivolous application

Issue 1: Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 28.9.2018. The application highlighted that the Tribunal had allocated one Appeal No. E/86987/2016 against two orders-in-original involving different amounts. The Revenue contended that the error was due to the fact that only one appeal number was allotted by the Tribunal, leading to confusion regarding the amounts involved in each appeal.

Issue 2: Restoration of an appeal dismissed by withdrawal
The Revenue had initially filed a miscellaneous application for the withdrawal of seventeen appeals, including Appeal No. E/86987/2016, citing that the amounts involved in each appeal were less than ?20.00 lakhs as per the litigation policy circular issued by the Board. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, including E/86987/2016, as withdrawn. However, in a subsequent miscellaneous application, the Revenue sought to restore E/86987/2016, clarifying that the withdrawal was intended only for an amount of ?14,28,748, not the larger amount of ?50,49,547.

Issue 3: Misleading information in the miscellaneous application
During the hearing, it was revealed that the Revenue had actually filed two appeals arising from the same order-in-appeal, challenging amounts of ?14,28,748 and ?50,49,547. The second appeal, E/86988/2016, was filed against the same order and was pending. The Tribunal found the information in the miscellaneous application to be misleading and incorrect, as it failed to acknowledge the existence of the second appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of litigation and noted that the Revenue's application was infructuous.

Issue 4: Imposition of cost on the erring officer for filing frivolous application
The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the frivolous nature of the application and the negligent approach of the Commissionerate. The Tribunal highlighted that such applications hinder the pace of disposal of appeals and go against the objective of reducing litigation pendency. Consequently, the Commissioner Central GST, Pune-I, was directed to deposit ?2000 into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks. The amount was to be recovered from the salary of the erring officer. Additionally, the Tribunal instructed the Registry to inform the Chairman CBEC, New Delhi, and the concerned Chief Commissioner of Pune Commissionerate to deter the filing of such unwarranted applications. Compliance was to be reported by 30.05.2019.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application as infructuous and emphasized the need to discourage the filing of frivolous and mindless applications through the imposition of costs and administrative measures.