2016 (6) TMI 710 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - condonation of delay - earlier application was dimissed ex-parte - Held that - Record reveals that principal appeal No.C/308/2010 is on the records of the Tribunal. It appears that appeal is alive. If the appellant is not given opportunity, throwing the appeal at its threshold stage, this appellant maybe aggrieved and becomes a fate accompli for the principal case to prevent such miscarriage of justice, it would be at the interest of justice that this present appeal should also be heard along with principal appeal. In view of aforesaid difficulties and to do justice to both sides, the present application to restore the restoration application is allowed and also considering the grievance of the appellant as to 34 days in seeking appeal remedy for reasons attributable to it and also for no malafide reason, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal, condonation of delay, opportunity for appellant, justice for both sides.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved the restoration of an appeal along with the condonation of delay. The case stemmed from a previous Customs Appeal where a stay order was passed, requiring a pre-deposit of a specified amount. The appellant was alleged to be an abettor in the offense related to the previous appeal, resulting in a penalty imposition. Subsequent events, including the dismissal of applications due to the appellant's absence and lack of adjournment requests, led to the appellant seeking to restore the appeal and stay application. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the record, noted the importance of providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case to prevent any miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the restoration application and condoned the delay, emphasizing the need for justice to be served to both parties. The Registry was directed to schedule the hearing of the stay application. Additionally, a directive was issued to ensure the proper listing of related cases to avoid oversight, particularly in matters involving significant revenue. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the applications for restoration and condonation of delay, setting the appeal back to its status quo for further proceedings.