1991 (11) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.
2. Application for recalling the order by the Tribunal.
3. Justification for non-prosecution.
4. Compliance with procedure rules.
5. Restoration of the appeal to its original number.
6. Exercise of inherent powers by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Tribunal. The applicants filed an application seeking the recalling of the order. The learned JDR representing the appellant argued that the delay in submission of necessary papers was due to reorganization of divisions, resulting in the appellant being prevented by sufficient cause for non-prosecution. The appellant pleaded for the restoration of the appeal based on these grounds.

2. The respondent, represented by a learned advocate, stated that in line with earlier Tribunal decisions, they had no objection to the restoration of the appeal and left the decision to the Bench's discretion. After hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal reviewed the case. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding non-compliance with procedure rules and the dismissal of appeals, emphasizing the importance of not depriving a party of the right to be heard on merit for procedural lapses.

3. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal highlighted that procedural requirements like producing paper-books are steps in aid of justice and not substantive justice itself. The Tribunal noted the negligence of the Department in complying with the Tribunal's order but also acknowledged the explanation provided by the Department for the delay in submitting the papers. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to its original number, emphasizing the importance of compliance with Tribunal orders and the need for vigilance on the part of Department officials.

4. Referring to another Supreme Court case, the Tribunal recognized its inherent powers and deemed it a suitable case to exercise these powers. The Tribunal recalled the earlier order, restoring the appeal to its original number for a hearing on merits. The decision highlighted the significance of balancing procedural compliance with the right to be heard and the Tribunal's duty to ensure justice is served.

By carefully considering the arguments presented, relevant legal precedents, and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exercised its inherent powers to restore the appeal, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance while ensuring justice is not obstructed by disproportionate penalties for procedural lapses.