2016 (2) TMI 439 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution - Advocate submits that there was representation for adjournment on 16.12.2014. On that day Junior counsel attached to their office seek adjournment on the ground that the counsel on record had on a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. He further submits that the non-appearance on that date was neither wilful nor wanton and pleads for restoration of their appeals - Held that - Apex Court has said that CESTAT could not dismiss the appeal for absence of the appellant but to decide the appeal on merits by relying on Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. - the appeals are restored to its original number.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications for restoration of their appeals after they were dismissed for non-prosecution. The advocate representing the applicants argued that the non-appearance on the scheduled date was due to a valid reason, as the counsel on record was on a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. The advocate cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CCE to support the argument for restoration. The advocate also requested that the appeals be linked with another appeal scheduled for hearing on a specific date. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and referred to the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal should decide appeals on merits and not dismiss them for the absence of the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of going into the correctness of points decided by the authorities based on submissions made by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the restoration of the appeals and directed the registry to list them for hearing along with another appeal on a specified date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, restored the appeals that were dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal emphasized the need to decide appeals on their merits rather than dismissing them for the absence of the appellant. The restoration was granted, and the appeals were directed to be listed for hearing along with another related appeal on a specific date. The applications for restoration were allowed based on the arguments presented and the legal principles governing the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.