2015 (1) TMI 583 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - no notice received of the date of hearing - Held that - Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach and which was uncalled for and unjustified then the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Tribunal was in error in refusing to restore the appeals and which are pending from the year 2000 on its file. The litigant and his advocate is expected to pursue the proceedings for a reasonable period. If the appeal is not likely to be heard for nearly 10 years and suddenly it is listed for hearing, the expectation would be that if the Advocate and parties are absent one more opportunity is given to them to remain present. This expectation even in today s e-world is not unreasonable. In such circumstances we would not expect the Tribunal hereafter to reject the requests for restoration of Appeals on the above grounds and to consider them sympathetically by applying liberal principles. With this hope the impugned order is quashed and set aside. - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Tribunal refusing to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication.
2. Dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution.
3. Rejection of restoration applications by the Tribunal.
4. Questions of law regarding the dismissal and restoration of the appeal.
5. Consideration of the Tribunal's approach and decision on restoration of appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal against the Tribunal's order refusing to restore Appeal No. E-1344, 1344 of 2000 for fresh adjudication. The Appellants were aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution on 9th December, 2009. The Appellants moved restoration applications, citing lack of notice receipt as the reason for non-appearance. An affidavit was filed by Narsi Dularam, a partner of the firm involved, stating no notice was received from the Tribunal during his association with the firm. Despite this, the Tribunal rejected the restoration applications, emphasizing that notices were issued and orders dispatched to the given address, leading to the presumption of receipt. The Tribunal relied on a previous judgment and dismissed the applications.

The High Court found fault with the Tribunal's decision, noting a hyper-technical approach and unjustified refusal to restore appeals pending since 2000. The Court emphasized the need for a reasonable period for pursuing proceedings and criticized the sudden listing of appeals after a significant delay. The Court directed the Tribunal to consider restoration requests sympathetically and apply liberal principles, quashing the impugned order and restoring the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court urged the appellants to be present for the final hearing, avoiding unnecessary adjournments, except for unforeseen circumstances. No costs were awarded in the judgment.