9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (3) TMI 526 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal in default by CEGAT. 2. Application for restoration of appeal dismissed by CEGAT. 3. Challenge to the order of dismissal and refusal to restore the appeal. Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal in default by CEGAT The appellant filed a petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of their appeal by CEGAT on 23-7-99. The petitioner contended that the appeal should not have been dismissed in default and even if dismissed, it should have been restored. The Tribunal's order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1) was challenged, which refused to restore the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on multiple occasions despite notices and service to the appellant. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, and the application for restoration was rejected due to the applicant's conduct not meriting restoration. Issue 2: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed by CEGAT The Tribunal's order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1) addressed the application for restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the history of the case, noting previous dismissals for non-prosecution and the lack of appearance by the appellant on multiple hearing dates. The Tribunal found that the conduct of the applicant did not warrant restoration, leading to the rejection of the restoration application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the applicant's repeated absence and failure to prosecute the appeal despite opportunities provided by the Tribunal. Issue 3: Challenge to the order of dismissal and refusal to restore the appeal The Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, upholding the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution and the rejection of the restoration application. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal had granted indulgence to the petitioner on numerous occasions, but the petitioner failed to take advantage of these opportunities. The Court noted that blaming the lawyer for non-appearance was not a valid ground for recalling the order, and there was no sufficient cause presented for restoration. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, supporting the Tribunal's decision based on sound discretion and the lack of grounds for restoration.
|
