2005 (4) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of appeal due to non-service of hearing notice on the Respondent.
- Application seeking restoration of appeal based on service of notice on Official Liquidator.
- Commissioner's failure to file an application regarding service of notice on Official Liquidator before the appeal was dismissed.
- Compliance with Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules.
- Validity of the Final Order dismissing the appeal.
- Rejection of the application for restoration of appeal.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue seeking restoration due to the dismissal of the appeal for non-service of hearing notice on the Respondent. The Bench had directed the Revenue to serve the notice through the Commissioner, but the Commissioner served the notice on the Official Liquidator instead. The Commissioner later applied for restoration of the appeal, citing the service of notice on the Official Liquidator. However, the Bench noted that the Commissioner should have addressed the issue of service on the Official Liquidator before the appeal was dismissed. The failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, as per Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules.

The Bench emphasized that they were not informed about the Respondent being liquidated, which led to the dismissal of the appeal for non-service of hearing notice. Referring to the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Electrolytic Foils Ltd., the Bench concluded that the dismissal order was correct. The subsequent action of the Commissioner to serve the notice on the Official Liquidator did not align with the Bench's direction and, therefore, could not be a basis for restoring the appeal. Consequently, the application for restoration of appeal was rejected by the Bench.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with procedural rules and timely communication of relevant information to the Bench. The dismissal of the appeal was deemed appropriate due to the failure to serve the hearing notice on the Respondent, as per the established legal principles and procedural requirements. The application for restoration was denied based on the Commissioner's failure to address the service issue before the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the significance of procedural diligence in legal proceedings.