2003 (11) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to CEGAT's order rejecting restoration application.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, along with an application under Section 35F of the Act for waiving the pre-deposit condition. The CEGAT heard the application and dispensed with the requirement of pre-deposit. The order sheet mentioned "interim stay granted" and listed the case for hearing on 22-6-2000. However, on that date, the CEGAT dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The petitioner filed a restoration application stating they did not receive notice for the hearing on 22-6-2000. The CEGAT rejected the restoration application, noting that the appellants were represented by their counsel during the stay petition hearing and were aware of the next hearing date. The petitioner contended that Rule 18 required notification of the hearing date, which was not done in this case.

The Court considered the contentions and noted that while the date was fixed on 22-6-2000, it was not properly communicated to the petitioner. The Court highlighted the importance of proper communication of hearing dates to ensure parties' substantive rights are not compromised. Rule 20 allowed for dismissal of an appeal for default if the appellant did not appear, but also provided for restoration if sufficient cause for non-appearance was shown. Referring to the Collector, Land Acquisition case, the Court emphasized the elastic nature of "sufficient cause" to serve justice. The Court criticized the CEGAT's rejection of the restoration application as pedantic and emphasized a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in such matters.

Consequently, the Court set aside the CEGAT's order rejecting the restoration application, allowed the petitioner's restoration application, and directed the CEGAT to decide the appeal afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.