2001 (5) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals due to lack of representation on 16-9-1998.
2. Disposal of appeal E/1621/93-A on 17-9-1998.
3. Miscellaneous applications filed post final order pronouncement.
4. Rectification applications for Modvat credit and subsequent dismissal.
5. Restoration applications filed and their consideration.
6. Request for recall of final orders due to lack of representation.
7. Contention of lack of opportunity to be heard and dismissal of appeals.
8. Dismissal of petitions and reasons provided.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed four appeals challenging orders under the Central Excise Act, 1944. On 16-9-1998, three appeals were dismissed due to the absence of representation by the appellant, leading to the Tribunal disposing of those appeals. The fourth appeal, E/1621/93-A, was heard on 17-9-1998 with representation and was also disposed of on the same day.

2. Post the pronouncement of final orders, miscellaneous applications were filed on 24-9-1998 seeking to include written submissions. However, since the final orders were already pronounced, these applications were deemed ineffective in influencing the outcomes of the appeals.

3. Subsequently, rectification applications were submitted on 3-12-1998 to rectify the alleged mistake of not considering the Modvat credit in the final orders. Despite elaborate arguments, the Tribunal dismissed these applications on 3-3-2001, leading to the appellant attempting to revive the issue through earlier recall applications.

4. Alongside the rectification applications, restoration applications were filed on 3-12-1998, which were not actively pursued until the appellant's failed attempt to secure Modvat credit. The restoration applications were then brought to the Tribunal's attention for consideration.

5. The appellant's main argument revolved around the alleged lack of notice regarding the posting of the appeals on 16-9-1998, resulting in their absence. However, the Tribunal found no grounds to recall the final orders passed on that date due to the appellant's responsibility for their non-appearance.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the final orders were passed after due consideration and hearing of the Departmental Representative, with the appellant's failure to appear on 16-9-1998 being attributed to their actions. Consequently, the requests for recall were deemed meritless and dismissed accordingly.