2008 (2) TMI 85 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of the appeal notice of hearing of the appeal in the week commencing 24-12-2007 was available to the party procedure of the Tribunal in vogue during those days was weekly listing of appeals, acknowledged by the applicants As the party was aware that their appeal was figuring in the weekly list, they were expected to be present circumstances are sufficiently indicative of the applicants negligence applicants have failed to make out sufficient cause for restoration

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application for restoration of appeal dismissed on merits due to non-appearance - Consideration of sufficient cause for recall of ex parte order - Applicability of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector judgment - Negligence of party in monitoring appeal listing and engaging counsel - Failure to establish sufficient cause for restoration of appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed on merits by the Bench. The applicants sought to recall the ex parte order and requested a fresh hearing based on their inability to appear due to receiving a hearing notice late. They relied on the judgment in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector, emphasizing the need to set aside ex parte orders when a party is unable to appear for reasons beyond their control. The respondent's counsel's unavailability on the hearing date was also highlighted. The learned counsel reiterated the plea for restoration, citing the circumstances surrounding the appeal's dismissal.

Upon considering the submissions, the Bench found no sufficient cause for recalling the order passed on merits. The judgment emphasized the requirement for a party to demonstrate a valid reason for their non-appearance during the final hearing. It was noted that the party had prior notice of the appeal's listing and was expected to monitor the procedural requirements, including engaging a counsel if necessary. The absence of representation on the hearing date indicated negligence on the part of the applicants. The Bench clarified that the counsel preoccupied with another case before the Commissioner was not the respondent's counsel for the appeal before them.

The judgment highlighted the failure of the applicants to establish sufficient cause for the restoration of the appeal. It was emphasized that the order was passed on merits and was appealable. The Bench, in agreement with the submissions made by the learned SDR, dismissed the application for restoration, concluding that the applicants had not demonstrated a valid reason for their non-appearance and subsequent request for recall of the order.

In conclusion, the application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed by the Bench, as the applicants failed to establish sufficient cause for their non-appearance and subsequent request for a fresh hearing. The judgment underscored the importance of monitoring appeal listings and engaging appropriate representation, ultimately upholding the dismissal of the application based on the lack of a valid reason for the recall of the order passed on merits.