HASTIMAL JEERAJ JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged an order dated 21-8-2014 passed by the CESTAT in which, on account of long delay, application for restoration of the appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed. The petitioner had appealed to the Tribunal against the judgment of the Excise authorities imposing duty and penalty liabilities. The Tribunal insisted that the petitioner deposits 10% by way of pre-deposit. Since it was not done, the appeal was dismissed without hearing on merits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several appeals arising out of the same group were pursued before the Tribunal and, in fact, allowed by the Tribunal, against which the Department has filed appeals before the High Court which are pending. In the present case and in one another case of the same petitioner, restoration application could not be filed for several reasons. Counsel pointed out that advocate of the petitioner has remained absent and the petitioner was not aware about dismissal of the appeal. In any case, the appeal was dismissed for not being able to fulfil the pre-deposit requirement, which the petitioner is prepared to do now.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. R.J. Oza for the Department highlighted the long delay in filing the restoration application.