9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. This ROM has been filed by Revenue finding fault with the Tribunal passing Miscellaneous Order No. 240/2006, dated 27-2-2006 restoring the appeal to its original number E/423/1999. The appellants had filed the Stay Application No. E/stay/185/1999 in the appeal No. E/423/1999. The appellants had been taking several adjournments to argue the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said deposit and prayed for listing the appeal for final hearing. However, there was lapse on the part of the Assistant Registrar, Chennai Bench in listing the matter for Final Hearing, despite several letters written by the appellants. The Chennai Bench was reconstituted and Bangalore Bench came into existence having jurisdiction over the Andhra Pradesh in which the appellant s company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or listing the matter for final hearing. The Commissioner submits in the ROM Application that Chennai Bench should have taken up the application for restoration and there is a lapse of 7 years and the delay cannot be condoned. 2. We have heard learned JDR in exteno and learned Counsel. 3. It is seen that the Commissioner has not understood the facts correctly. It is seen that the stay applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the appeal for final hearing. Failure on the part of the Registry cannot be a cause for rectification of mistake, which does not exist. There is no mistake committed by the Bench in restoring the appeal by Miscellaneous Order No. 240/2006 dated 27-2-2006 requiring its rectification. There is no merit in this ROM and the same is rejected. Appeal to come up for final hearing on 1st February 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
