2006 (9) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the issue at hand was the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellants had previously filed an application for restoration, which was dismissed due to their non-appearance on multiple occasions. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the closure of the appellants' unit had caused a communication gap, leading to their non-appearance. They contended that they were interested in prosecuting the appeal and had a representative present on the date of dismissal of the earlier application. An affidavit was also filed, but not considered by the Bench. The appellants argued that the appeal should not be dismissed solely for non-prosecution without discussing the merits of the case, citing relevant judgments.

The judgment acknowledged that the appellants were prevented from presenting their case on earlier occasions due to sufficient cause, such as the closure of their unit causing a communication gap. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments and granted the restoration of the appeal. It was ordered that the appeal be restored to its file, and the matter was directed to be listed for a future date. The Tribunal recognized the appellants' assurance of being prompt in prosecuting the appeal and allowed the application for restoration accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for their non-appearance and granted the restoration of the appeal based on the sufficient cause presented. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances leading to non-prosecution before dismissing an appeal, highlighting the need to balance procedural requirements with the merits of the case.