9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 30 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal Tribunal granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit - applicants were under a bona fide belief that their appeal is pending before this Tribunal - enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent Preventive regarding the payment of penalty Held that - No notice of hearing order was sent to the applicant - order passed by this Tribunal is an order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution - in the case of absence of appellant, the Tribunal is to pass the order on merits after going through the records available before it. In the case of Viral Laminates 1998 (4) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARATD the Hon ble High Court has held Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules as ultra vires. - applicant should be heard on merits - application for restoration of appeal allowed
Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
Analysis: The case involved an application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Tribunal. The applicant, Mahendra Trading Co., had initially filed an appeal on 31-5-2000 and obtained a waiver of pre-deposit on 28-4-2001. The applicant believed their appeal was pending, but they were later informed in 2006 by the Superintendent Preventive, Lucknow, about the dismissal of their appeal due to non-prosecution. The applicant claimed they had not received any such order of dismissal and were unaware of the status of their appeal until 2010. The applicant, having not received any notice or intimation regarding the dismissal, applied for restoration of the appeal on the grounds that they were not informed of the hearing or the dismissal order dated 12-8-2004. They also mentioned the demise of their authorized representative, Shri B.N. Rangwani, as a factor contributing to their lack of awareness regarding the appeal status. During the argument, the applicant's counsel cited legal precedents to support the restoration of the appeal. Reference was made to the case of Viral Laminates v. UOI, where the Gujarat High Court had invalidated Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which allowed dismissal of appeals for default of appearance. Additionally, the case of Chemipol v. UOI was mentioned, where the Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal must decide appeals on merits if submissions are filed in writing, and cannot dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. The counsel prayed for the appeal to be restored and heard on merits. After considering the submissions and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the absence of any notice of hearing in the records and the lack of evidence regarding whether the notice was sent to the applicant. The Tribunal also acknowledged the previous order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. In line with the legal principles cited, the Tribunal decided that in the absence of the appellant, the appeal should be heard on merits. Citing the rulings of the High Courts, the Tribunal found that Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules was ultra vires and directed the restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal ordered the Registry to list the appeal for a hearing, ensuring notice to both the applicant and their present counsel. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for the appeal to be heard on merits and following the legal precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
