1987 (9) TMI 273 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for default of appearance and non-compliance with notice of hearing.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand was the application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed on 27-10-1986 due to the default of appearance of the appellants and non-compliance with the notice of hearing. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the date of the hearing and sought restoration of the appeal on that basis.

The appellants, represented by Shri B.B. Gujaral, Advocate, contended that they were absent on 27-10-1986 not intentionally, as they did not receive the notice for the hearing or a copy of the order dated 27-10-1986. On the other hand, Smt. Dolly Saxena for the Department argued that the appellants were duly informed about the hearing date through an order sent after an adjournment and that the appellants had sufficient time to file the necessary documents before the deadline.

The Tribunal noted that the notice for the hearing on 3-9-1986 was received by the appellants, and subsequent orders were dispatched to the same address. The Tribunal found the appellants' claim of not receiving the orders to be unacceptable, especially since they had been specifically informed about the filing deadlines and hearing dates. The appellants' failure to file the required documents despite prior notifications indicated a lack of seriousness in conducting the proceedings.

The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants had sufficient time to prepare for the appeal, especially after requesting an extension to file documents in August 1986. The appellants' lack of proactive action, such as not sending the documents without waiting for further notice or making timely inquiries, demonstrated their indifference towards fulfilling their responsibilities in the appeal process. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to establish grounds to set aside the dismissal order, and therefore, the application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed.