KANCHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of M/s. Kanchan Industries for restoration of their appeals, which were dismissed for non -compliance with the Stay Order Nos. 453 -60/91 -WRB, dated 13 -11 -1991.

(2.) Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal vide Stay Order, dated 13 -11 -1991 had directed M/s. Kanchan Industries to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs, M/s. Neha Industries Rs. 20,000/ - and M/s. Kanchan Kitchen Aid Rs. 20,000/ - towards penalty; that they had deposited the said amount and informed the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal under their letter, dated 11 -5 -1992; that the Applicants had deposited the entire amount as directed by the Tribunal and intimation was also sent later to the Assistant Registrar, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal; that when the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal at New Delhi, unfortunately nobody could appear on their behalf; that it also seems that the compliance reports filed with the Mumbai Bench were not recorded before the Tribunal at New Delhi and for this reason the appeals were dismissed for non -compliance vide Final Order Nos. 1476 -1483/98 -B, dated 23 -9 -1998; that they had not filed the application for restoration of the appeals earlier as the order of the CEGAT dismissing the appeal was misplaced.

(3.) Opposing the prayer Ms. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the appeals were dismissed in 1998 whereas the restoration application has been filed after almost 31/2 years and no satisfactory reason has been advanced by the applicants except merely saying that the final order of the Tribunal had been misplaced; that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of B.M. Auto India v. CCE - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 686 (T) that though no time -limit has been provided for filing the application for restoration of appeals, the same has to be filed within a reasonable period of time. She, therefore, contended that as the applicants had taken more than 31/2 years in filing the restoration application the same deserves to be dismissed.