9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 14 - HC - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - Non appearance of counsel - Held that - The restoration application was filed on the same day. There is no finding in the order impugned that the appellant was delaying the matter. The non-appearance of the counsel at 3.25 P.M. in the Tribunal was explained by stating that the counsel had to rush to the High Court where another case was called out in the afternoon. The circumstances in which the counsel for the appellant could not appear was beyond the control of the appellant, and we are of the view that the explanation give for non-appearance was sufficient enough to restore the appeal and hear the appeal on merits - Appeal restored.
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed in default due to the absence of the appellant's counsel. 2. Justification for not restoring the appeal to its original number. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and admitted based on two questions regarding the Tribunal's decision not to restore the appeal to its original number. The appellant's counsel was absent during the appeal hearing, leading to its dismissal in default. The appellant filed a restoration application on the same day, explaining that the counsel had to rush to the High Court for another case, causing the absence. The Tribunal rejected the restoration application citing insufficient cause for the absence of the appellant or the counsel. The appellant argued that the absence was due to a genuine reason and requested the matter to be heard on merits. 2. The High Court considered the submissions and the record. It noted that there was no finding that the appellant was delaying the matter, and the non-appearance of the counsel was due to attending another case at the High Court. The Court found the explanation for the absence beyond the appellant's control and deemed it sufficient to restore the appeal for a hearing on merits. Consequently, the Court answered both questions in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the previous orders. The appeal was restored to its original number for expeditious disposal due to its age.
|
