SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by M/s. The Supreme Industries Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/1018/97 -D, dated 9 -11 -97.

(2.) SHRI M.H. Patil, learned Advocate, submitted that the said Final Order was not received/or misplaced by the applicants, and hence, no action was taken by them for restoration of appeal earlier; that the said matter was looked after by Shri B.N. Rangwani, Consultant, who after prolonged illness expired in 2001; that thereafter the files belonging to the applicants were returned to them during 2002; that on inquiry from the Supdt., Central Excise, the applicants informed under a bona fide belief that still the appeal is pending before the Tribunal; that however, on going through the files returned from late Shri Rangwani's office they found that their appeal had been dismissed for default; that in these circumstances their application for restoration of appeal may be allowed. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that in view of these facts they could not file application for restoration of appeal earlier; that in any case the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules; that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Gujarat) has held that the Appellate Tribunal is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance but has to decide the appeal on merits; that following the said judgment the Tribunal in the case of Century Enka v. C.C., Mumbai, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 824 has restored the appeal.

(3.) OPPOSING the prayer Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/198/97 -D, dated 19 -11 -97 which was forwarded to both, the applicants well as their Advocate; that from the photocopy of the Final Order annexed with the application for restoration of appeal, it is clearly seen that the copy of the Final Order was sent to the appellants. He, further, mentioned that the appellants themselves have mentioned in their application that the order either was not received or misplaced by the applicants; that in view of this it is not open to the applicants to come after more than 41/2 years of passing the Final Order to come with an application for restoration of appeal; that it has been held by the Tribunal in B.M. Auto India v. CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 686 that though no time -limit is prescribed in the statute or in the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, the application has to be filed within a reasonable time; that in the said matter the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Additional Director of Consolidation, 1997 (6) SCALE 382 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that "even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time." He, therefore, requested that the application deserves to be dismissed.