2022 (11) TMI 795 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - non-compliance of the pre-deposit of duty within the period stipulated by the Tribunal - HELD THAT - There is no dispute with regard to the facts of this case and hence, it will be more appropriate to directly go into the issue that is involved in these appeals. The appeals filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Madurai, before the Tribunal was accompanied by an application seeking for dispensing with the predeposit of the duty amount - Admittedly, the condition imposed by the Tribunal was not complied with and hence, a final order was passed by the Tribunal on 09.08.2007 dismissing the appeals. The Tribunal is a creature of the Statute. Hence, the Tribunal can act only in exercise of such power and jurisdiction as is conferred under the Central Excise Act. On carefully going through the Act and Rules, there are no specific power conferred on the Tribunal to restore the appeals which has been dismissed finally. The Tribunal became Functus officio once a final order has passed and there is no scope for restoring an appeal thereafter - there are no justification for the appellant to file a petition for restoration of appeals after the exorbitant delay of nearly 7 years. The amount that was directed to be deposited was not exorbitant and the total amount that is involved in all the three appeals put together did not even exceed Rs.7 lakhs. Hence, seeking for restoration of appeals after 7 years without any justification, only calls for a dismissal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to orders passed by CESTAT dismissing applications for restoration of appeals due to non-compliance with pre-deposit of duty within stipulated period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to CESTAT orders dismissing restoration applications
The appeals filed by the appellant challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Madurai. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make pre-deposit amounts within a specified period, failing which the appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, restoration applications were filed after 7 years, contending non-intentional non-compliance and subsequent deposit of amounts. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, leading to the filing of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Tribunal to restore appeals
The appellant argued for restoration based on a Supreme Court judgment favoring exemption due to being a small-scale industry. However, the Standing Counsel contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to restore appeals after a final order. Citing a previous judgment, it was argued that once a final order is passed, the Tribunal becomes Functus officio and cannot restore the appeal. Additionally, the delay of 7 years in filing restoration applications was deemed unjustified.

Issue 3: Merits of restoration applications
The Court observed that no substantial question of law was involved in the case, and the arguments mainly revolved around the facts. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss restoration applications was upheld, considering the lack of justification for the delay in filing, the relatively small amount involved, and the absence of legal grounds for restoration. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed without costs.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to CESTAT orders, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to restore appeals, and the merits of the restoration applications, providing a detailed overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court.