2016 (4) TMI 1160 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Held that - On earlier occasions when Order dated 03.12.2015 was passed by this Bench, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant, however, the Appeals were decided by this Bench on merits by giving details findings on the issue. The restoration of Order dated 03.12.2015 passed by this Bench, therefore, cannot be allowed as this court has no power to review its own Order. Reliance placed in the case of Alfred Berg & Co.(I) (P) Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2009 (6) TMI 673 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Held that - the facts of the case not applicable to the case as in that case no summon was served upon the petitioner whereas in the present case the notice issued to the Appellant has not been returned undelivered - if the address given to Cestat Registry is not proper or has been changed due to any reason, then the responsibility is on the Appellant to intimate proper address to the Cestat Registry for communication - Restoration Applications filed by the Appellants dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration application filed by the Appellant regarding an order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Bench without hearing the Appellant.
2. Argument by the Appellant's consultant based on a case law from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
3. Argument by the Revenue's representative that the Bench decided the Appeals on merit, not due to non-prosecution.
4. Whether the Bench has the power to review its own order and allow restoration of the earlier order.
5. Dismissal of Restoration Applications based on the address issue and lack of applicability of the case law cited by the Appellant.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed Restoration Applications concerning an order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Bench without the Appellant's representation. The consultant for the Appellant argued that the order was issued without hearing the Appellant, citing a case law from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that the Appeals were decided on merit, not due to non-prosecution, opposing the restoration application.

2. The Bench, after hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, noted that no one appeared for the Appellant during the previous order's issuance. Despite the absence of the Appellant, the Bench had decided the Appeals on merits with detailed findings. The Bench concluded that it lacked the authority to review its own order and allow restoration, as it had already decided the Appeals based on merit, not due to non-prosecution.

3. The Appellant's consultant referenced a case law during the hearing, highlighting an issue with the address provided by the Appellant in the Appeal. The consultant argued that the Appellant did not receive the intimation of the personal hearing due to an improper address. However, the Bench noted that the notice was not returned undelivered, indicating that the address issue was the Appellant's responsibility to rectify with the Cestat Registry for communication purposes. Consequently, the Bench dismissed the Restoration Applications, stating that the cited case law was not applicable to the circumstances of the Appeal.