2013 (10) TMI 950 - AT - Customs

Restoration of Appeal Held that - The letter of the party was not placed before the bench on 26.3.2004 - Apparently, there was no representation for the party before the bench on 26.3.2004 - having found no evidence of COD s clearance having been obtained by the PSU, this bench dismissed both the appeals on 26.3.2004 - the present applications cannot be rejected for want of explanation of delay thereof - The fact that Committee on Disputes clearance was duly intimated to the Registry by the appellant on 15.3.2004 is undeniable - though there is no explanation for non-appearance of the appellant or their counsel on 26.3.2004, we are inclined to allow these applications - The final order insofar as it pertains to BPCL is recalled and both the appeals are restored to the respective original numbers.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD).
2. Delay in filing restoration applications.
3. Requirement of COD clearance for filing or pursuing appeals by a PSU.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a central PSU, sought restoration of appeals dismissed for lack of COD clearance. The appellant had obtained COD clearance on 12.2.2004 and informed the Registry on 12.3.2004. However, due to non-representation on 26.3.2004, the fact of COD clearance was not brought to the bench's notice, leading to the dismissal of appeals. The appellant argued that post the Supreme Court's ruling in a specific case, no PSU requires COD clearance for appeal before the Tribunal. The bench acknowledged the COD clearance intimation on 15.3.2004 and decided to allow the restoration applications, recalling the final order and restoring both appeals.

2. The Superintendent (AR) highlighted the heavy delay in filing the restoration applications, as they were submitted on 28.2.2012, significantly later than the dismissal date of 26.3.2004. Citing a case, the Superintendent argued for dismissal due to the unexplained delay beyond the reasonable three-month period. In response, the appellant's counsel referenced other cases to counter the delay argument. The bench considered the submissions and noted the lack of representation on 26.3.2004, emphasizing the undeniable fact of COD clearance intimation on 15.3.2004. Despite the absence of an explanation for the delay, the bench decided to allow the applications, reinstating both appeals.

3. The issue of whether a PSU needs COD clearance for filing or pursuing appeals before the Tribunal was also addressed. The appellant's counsel argued that post a Supreme Court ruling, such clearance was not necessary. The bench, after careful consideration, acknowledged the COD clearance obtained by the appellant and the subsequent intimation to the Registry. The bench concluded that the applications should not be rejected solely based on the delay, as the COD clearance intimation was undeniable. Consequently, the bench allowed the applications, recalling the final order and restoring both appeals to their original numbers.