9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 778 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - rectification of mistake - application was dismissed for want of prosecution of the same on the date of hearing - Held that - The ROM application filed earlier by the applicant stands dismissed. It is to be recorded that on the date when the ROM was listed none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Even today when the ROA was called, there is no appearance on behalf of the applicant - the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution - application rejected.
Issues:
- Restoration of appeal for rectification of mistake - Dismissal of application for rectification of mistake - Provisions for restoration of an ROM application - Non-appearance of the applicant - Decision based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment Analysis: The judgment pertains to a Misc. application for restoration of appeal filed against the dismissal of an appeal for rectification of mistake. The applicant had previously filed an ROM numbered as E/ROM/50558/2018 in Excise Appeal No. E/3841/2010, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The application for rectification of mistake was dismissed for want of prosecution, leading to the filing of the present application for restoration. However, during the hearing of the Misc. application, the applicant did not appear. The ld. DR representing the Revenue argued that there is no provision for the restoration of a dismissed ROM application. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case, the ld. DR emphasized that applications for restoration cannot be entertained under any circumstances. Consequently, the ld. DR prayed for the rejection of the Misc. application. Considering the non-appearance of the applicant during the listing of the ROM application and the subsequent hearing of the restoration application, the Tribunal, in line with the Supreme Court's decisions, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of representation on behalf of the applicant as a crucial factor in reaching this decision. Ultimately, the Misc. application for restoration was rejected based on the arguments presented and the precedent set by the Supreme Court judgment cited by the ld. DR representing the Revenue.
|
