2015 (12) TMI 1095 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that - It is seen from the order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal that the matter was adjourned in several occasions at the request of the appellant and nobody turned up on behalf of the appellant. It is noted that in the month of July 2012, the appellant received the copy of the order of the Tribunal from the Registry, but, no application was filed by the applicant till 23.01.2015. It is noted that the appellant is a private limited company. There is a long delay of about 5 years. On the identical situation, the Hon ble High Court in the case of L. J. Synthetics Mills (2010 (3) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. - Revenue already acted upon the Final Order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal. In our considered view, when the Revenue had taken steps to implement to the Final Order of the Tribunal, there is no scope to recall the order dated 06.07.2010. Hence, we do not find any force in the submission of the Learned Advocate on merit. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to recall the order dated 06.07.2010 - Restoration denied.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution
2. Condonation of delay in filing applications for restoration of appeals

Issue 1: Restoration of Appeals Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
The applicants filed applications for restoration of appeals (ROA) dismissed for non-prosecution by Final Order. The Learned Advocate argued that the Tribunal lacks the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution, citing various court decisions supporting this stance. The Revenue opposed the applications, highlighting that the appeals were dismissed due to a history of non-prosecution by the appellants. The Tribunal reviewed the records and observed the repeated adjournments and non-appearance of the appellants, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal referred to relevant court decisions emphasizing the need for timely prosecution of appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the applications for restoration lacked merit due to a significant delay in filing and upheld the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution.

Issue 2: Condonation of Delay in Filing Applications for Restoration of Appeals
The applicants also filed applications for condonation of delay (COD) in filing the applications for restoration of appeals. The Learned Advocate argued for condonation based on reasons such as lack of awareness of the dismissal order and the Director's ill health causing financial crisis and depression. However, the Tribunal noted a substantial delay of about 6 years in filing the applications. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar delay led to the rejection of an appeal. The Tribunal found the Director's illness insufficient grounds for condoning the delay. The Revenue had initiated recovery proceedings based on the final order, indicating that the Tribunal's decision had practical implications. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and restoration of appeals, as the Revenue had already acted on the final order, leaving no scope for reversal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution and rejected the applications for restoration and condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of timely prosecution and the practical implications of the final order.