9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Sinha and Darshana Poddar, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C. (I.T.) and Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Service Tax Appeal No. 134 of 2008 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata. The said appeal was dismissed vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or granting permission to the petitioner to prefer the appeal. However, again one Miscellaneous Application No. MA(ROA) 444 of 2011 has been filed for restoration of the appeal being S.T. Appeal No. 134 of 2008 before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 2-7-2012 in absence of the petitioner and after observing that "the applicant filed the restoration application and that application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal by public sector units. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellant's appeal was maintainable and COD, if would have been functional, would have granted the clearance for preferring appeal. Since, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the COD is now non-functional, the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be restored. 4. We considered the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for restoration of appeal in accordance with law according to its workload in view of the fact that since long, the matter is pending before the Tribunal and twice the petitioner's applications have been dismissed and thus, the Tribunal may do the needful expeditiously. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought interim relief on the ground that the petitioner is a public sector unit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
