2006 (4) TMI 171 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Grossest abuse of process of law; Failure to appear for personal hearing; Non-compliance with interim order; Failure to receive notices of hearing; Refusal to restore appeal; Change of address communication; Writing letters to Tribunal; Delay in seeking restoration of appeal; Lack of concrete merit in appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of abuse of the legal process in a writ petition where the petitioner failed to appear for scheduled personal hearings despite fixed dates. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of notices as an excuse, including for an interim order and subsequent appeal hearing dates. The Tribunal, in its order refusing restoration of the appeal, noted that the petitioner did not update the address after the factory takeover, leading to notices being sent to the last known registered address. The petitioner contended that a change of address was communicated through a couriered letter, which the Tribunal found unconventional as there was no rule permitting such communication method. The court emphasized the standard practice of intimating address changes through formal applications rather than informal letters.

The petitioner further argued that they had been writing letters to the Tribunal to update on the appeal's progress, but received no response. The court clarified that it is not customary for litigants to correspond directly with courts or tribunals regarding case updates, as such communications are typically directed to legal counsel. Additionally, the petitioner displayed a lack of diligence by not inquiring about the appeal's status for two years before seeking restoration, indicating a desire to prolong the legal proceedings.

The court reviewed the merits of the appeal, which primarily contested the imposition of a penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Despite the petitioner accepting the demand specified in the adjudication order without appealing against it, the court found the penalty imposition justified. Consequently, the court declined to intervene in the writ petition, ultimately dismissing it based on the lack of substantial grounds to warrant interference.