1994 (8) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants sought restoration of the appeal, stating that they had paid the required amount of Rs. 4,34,896/- on 2nd August, 1994, albeit after the stipulated period due to financial constraints. The learned advocate representing the appellants reiterated the contentions made in the application for restoration, while the learned SDR for the respondents did not object to the restoration since the duty amount had been paid. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the appellants, as bona fide taxpayers, had made the payment and were satisfied with the payment verification by the SDR. Citing the need to serve the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal, drawing parallels to a similar issue in a previous case.

The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment involving the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E, highlighting the importance of the correct legal procedure for such restoration. The Tribunal noted that the applicants should have made a prayer for recalling the order instead of solely seeking restoration. The learned Advocate for the appellants requested that the pre-deposit of the penalty amount be dispensed with, which was initially ordered in a previous stay order that was no longer in effect. After considering both sides, the Tribunal decided to continue dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the interest of justice. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in a specific case, emphasizing the Tribunal's power to recall its earlier order if the ends of justice necessitate such action.

In light of the discussion and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had valid reasons for the delayed payment and set aside the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F. The appeal was restored to its original number, and the dispensation of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount was continued as per the previous stay order. Ultimately, the application for the restoration of the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, considering the circumstances and legal principles involved in the case.