2010 (1) TMI 1038 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with stay order leading to dismissal of appeal.
2. Restoration of appeal after depositing the required amount.
3. Verification of receipt of communication by the appellant.
4. Application for restoration of appeal allowed based on deposit made.
5. Appeal decision influenced by a precedent involving a similar case.

Issue 1: Non-compliance with stay order leading to dismissal of appeal
The appellant's appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the stay order. The appellant then approached the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which allowed withdrawal of the petition and directed the appellant to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for restoration, which was initially dismissed as the appellant had not deposited the required amount as per the stay order.

Issue 2: Restoration of appeal after depositing the required amount
The appellant filed a fresh application for restoration after depositing an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. During the hearing, it was noted that the Department had been sending letters to the appellant since 2005 regarding the dismissal of the appeal and the required deposit. The appellant claimed not to have received these communications due to a change in residence. Considering the appellant's deposit and lack of evidence of receipt of communications, the application for restoration was allowed, and the appeal was restored.

Issue 3: Verification of receipt of communication by the appellant
Both sides presented their arguments regarding the appellant's receipt of communications from the Department. While the Department claimed to have sent letters since 2005, the appellant contended that none were received due to a change in address. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission, noting the lack of evidence of receipt of communications by the appellant.

Issue 4: Application for restoration of appeal allowed based on deposit made
The appellant had deposited the required amount as per the stay order and had previously deposited an additional sum. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's compliance with the deposit requirements, allowed the application for restoration of the appeal, leading to the appeal being restored to its original number.

Issue 5: Appeal decision influenced by a precedent involving a similar case
The appellant argued that the issue in their appeal was similar to one previously decided in favor of another party in a separate case involving the same order-in-original. The Tribunal acknowledged this precedent and agreed that the appeal may be finally decided based on the previous decision. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief based on the precedent decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the restoration of the appellant's appeal after depositing the required amount, considering the lack of evidence of receipt of communications by the appellant and the influence of a precedent decision involving a similar case.