mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3317 OF 2006 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.67 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise...Appellant Vs. M/s.Preetam Enterprises .....Respondents Mr. A.S. Rao, for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. From the statement of facts it appears that the duty demand as held by the Commissioner of Appeals was Rs.36,569/- and penalty was Rs.500/- which the Tribunal set aside on the ground that CENVAT credit rules are silent on disposal of wastage and scrap. 2. Motion has been taken out for setting aside the order of the Prothonotary dismissing the appeal for failure to remove office objections. The affidavit of I.D. Majumdar does not give sufficient cause explaining the delay between the dismissal of the Appeal and the Motion for restoration except to state that when the Superintendent went to inquire on 24th July, 2006 with the Ministry of Law and Justice as to what had happened about the Central Excise Appeal a Clerk was deputed to find out about the position of the matter when they came to know about the dismissal of the same on 24th July, 2006. 3. The Motion was taken out only on 13th September, 2006. The delay has not been explained. 4. In our opinion, considering the above, this is not a fit case for us to set aside the order of the Prothontary. 5. We, however, make it clear that the question of law, if any, is left for consideration in appropriate case. 6. With the above observation Notice of Motion along with Appeal dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)