2016 (9) TMI 79 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeals - earlier dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries in 2006 - COD was received in May 2007 and appellant in end of 2014 ie., after more than 7 years of obtaining COD prayed for restoration of appeal as the appellants have now produced the COD clearance - no reason explaining the delay in filing the appeal even after obtaining the COD has been put forward by appellant - Held that - reasonable delay, and that too satisfactorily explained with reasons thereof can be grounds for favourable consideration of applications for restoration of appeal. Indigent condition of the appellant or the appellant being a small proprietorship firm or even an SSI may also be grounds for condoning the delay and acceding to the restoration of appeal. But in the instant case the appellant is a huge Public Sector Undertaking undeniably having sufficient manpower and other organizational infrastructure and facilities. This being so in our view, such enormous delay, that too unexplained even after giving opportunity for the same borders on the callous. As the appellant PSU having slumbered for so long cannot now wake up and obtain restoration of the appeal. This is precisely what the doctrine of laches propounds. Based on the maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subviniunt The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of appeals dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries
- Delay in filing restoration applications after obtaining COD clearance
- Requirement of filing a COD clearance to consider the appeal on merits
- Arguments regarding delay in filing restoration applications
- Comparison with relevant legal judgments

Issue 1: Restoration of appeals dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, filed appeals against lower authority orders related to clearances of ethanol blended motor spirit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for want of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries but granted liberty to seek restoration upon producing the required clearance. The appellant later sought restoration by producing the COD clearance, leading to a hearing where arguments were presented by both sides.

Issue 2: Delay in filing restoration applications after obtaining COD clearance
The appellant obtained the COD clearance in 2007 but filed restoration applications in 2014, after more than seven years. The applications lacked an affidavit explaining the delay, and despite requests for adjournments to provide reasons, no satisfactory explanation was given. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely filing and stated that unexplained delays could not be entertained.

Issue 3: Requirement of filing a COD clearance to consider the appeal on merits
The Tribunal had made it clear that clearance from the Committee of Secretaries was necessary for proceeding with the appeals. The appellant argued that filing a COD clearance was not required to consider the appeal on merits, but the Tribunal upheld its previous decision and emphasized the necessity of the clearance for restoration.

Issue 4: Arguments regarding delay in filing restoration applications
The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument that delays in approaching the Tribunal should not be grounds for rejection. However, the Tribunal noted that the cited cases involved timely submissions of explanations for delays, unlike the current situation where no satisfactory reasons were provided despite multiple opportunities.

Issue 5: Comparison with relevant legal judgments
The Tribunal compared the current case with legal judgments such as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE, where delays in restoration applications were not condoned due to lack of diligence. The Tribunal also referenced cases like Ablaze Process Systems and Kirtikumar J Shah, where unexplained delays led to dismissals of restoration applications. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's significant delay without adequate justification did not warrant restoration of the appeals, citing the doctrine of laches.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, emphasizing the need for timely actions and justifiable explanations for delays in approaching the Tribunal for restoration of appeals.