9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed ex parte and the defaulting litigant approaches the Tribunal showing cause of non-appearance, the Tribunal should not act harshly by simply recording that petition does not show that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause. Furthermore, the Tribunal has misconstrued the application to be an application for review when proviso to Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides for setting aside ex parte order of dismissal provided a sufficient cause is made out. - Tribunal invoked the wrong provision and therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable in law. This Court on perusing the averments made in the miscellaneous application finds that the petitioner has made out a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for condonation of delay ex parte and ultimately dismissed the same as a consequence whereof the application for stay as well as an appeal stood dismissed. 4. In a miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner seeks for restoration of the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay which is again dismissed and the said order is challenged in this writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the Court or the Tribunal should adopt a lenient approach in dealing with an application for condonation of delay. Length of delay is not material but sufficiency of the cause is. Delay of longer period may be condoned if sufficient cause is made out but the delay of shorter period may not be condoned in absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 7. The Court, therefore, finds that the Tribunal invoked the wrong provision and therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable in law. This Court on perusing the averments made in the miscellaneous application finds that the petitioner has made out a case, which constitutes the sufficient cause. This Court finds that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing on the day when his application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte. 8. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order as a consequence whereof the Miscellaneous Application No. 83359 of 2013 stands allowed. 9. The application for condonation of delay is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
