LAWS(GJH)-2009-7-243

ABLAZE PROCESS SYSTEMS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 10, 2009
Ablaze Process Systems Ltd Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 16 -4 -2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad [for short, the Appellate Tribunal ] in Application No. E/ROA/1164 of 2008 in Appeal No. E/931 of 1997 2009 241 ELT 569, whereby, the said application has been dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of laboratory glassware items. On 11 -10 -1994, the officials of the Central Excise Department carried out a surprise visit at the factory premises of the petitioner -Company and they allegedly found several irregularities in the maintenance of the books of accounts and payment of central excise duty. Therefore, necessary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner -Company.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The order of CEGAT, Mumbai di smissing the appeal for non -compliance u/s. 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was passed on 12 -12 - 1997 and the Misc. Application praying to restore the said appeal came to be preferred only on 28 -11 -2008 , i.e. after a period of more than ten years. To revive the appeal after a gap of more than ten years would amount to putting life to a body lying dead for 11 years. This reflects the casual attitude of the petitioner -Company and shows that the petitioner -Company is not interested in the proceedings. The decision of this Court passed in S.C.A. No. 2213/2001, dated 11 -3 -2008 GOEL SCIENTIFIC WORKS LTD V/S UNION OF INDIA, 2009 234 ELT 636 nd which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner -Company shall not come in the rescue of the petitioner -Company inasmuch as in that case, there was no such delay in preferring the restoration application as is the case in this matter. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the present case.