1994 (6) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution; Application for recalling of order; Wilful negligence or omission by appellant; Delay in compliance with court's order; Procedural rules for non-compliance; Bona fide of appellants; Precedent of C.C.E. v. Leatherite Industries Ltd.; Supreme Court's stance on procedural requirements; Gravity of lapse in non-compliance; Access to justice vs. procedural steps; Recall of earlier order and listing of appeal for hearing.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal due to non-prosecution, which was treated as an application for recalling of the order by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in compliance was not due to wilful negligence but a mistake by the previous counsel, justifying the non-prosecution. The Department did not object to this argument, leading to the Tribunal accepting the application for recalling the order. The Tribunal emphasized the bona fide nature of the appellant's actions, citing a precedent where the Tribunal held that penal actions for non-compliance must be proportionate to the lapse.

The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision highlighting the importance of procedural requirements in facilitating justice. It emphasized that penalties for non-compliance should not impede access to justice, and the gravity of the lapse should be considered before dismissing an appeal. The Tribunal noted the negligence of the Department in complying with the court's order but acknowledged the subsequent compliance, leading to the decision to recall the earlier order and list the appeal for hearing on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, recalling the earlier order and scheduling the appeal for a hearing on the specified date. The decision was based on the principle that procedural steps should not obstruct access to justice, and penalties for non-compliance should be proportionate to the gravity of the lapse, as established by legal precedents and the Supreme Court's stance on procedural requirements.