9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Saxena, JCDR, for the Appellant. Shri Arun Srivastava, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. Heard the Jt. CDR for the Department and the learned advocate for the respondents. 2. Both these applications are for restoration of the appeals. It is the case of the applicants/respondents that all the work relating to Central Excise was being looked after by the Manager of the firm and all the papers relating to the appeals were received by the Manager of the firm and were not brought to the notice of the Managing Director of the firm. In those circumstances, nobody appeared on 26-11-2008, the day on which the appeals were disposed of on merits. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the applicants/respondents placing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were required to appear before the Tribunal to defend their case. The order was passed as long back as on 26th November, 2008, whereas the applications were filed only on 25th May, 2009. 5. The applications nowhere disclose as to when the applicants/ respondents came to know about the matter having been heard on 26th November, 2008 and what prevented them from filing the applications immediately after they came to know about the same. 6. The contention that all the papers were with the Manager of the firm and that, therefore, the applicants/respondents could not know the date of hearing of the matter nor they could make arrangement to be represented by their advocate, does not appear to be true state of affairs as the affidav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nager, as to when the search of those papers was taken, and what prevented the applicants/respondents from approaching the Tribunal immediately thereafter. None of these facts have been brought on record by the applicants/respondents which disclose lack of bona fide. 8. Undoubtedly, the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. s case (supra) had held that, it is for CESTAT to consider in every such case whether the respondent who applies for recall of the ex parte order against him had sufficient cause for remaining absent when it was passed and, if it is established to the satisfaction of CESTAT that there was sufficient cause, CESTAT must set aside the ex parte order, restore the appeal . As already seen above, in the absence of sufficient c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
