9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as penalty and as such the requirement of section 35 F have been fully complied with. - Appeal restored. - Excise ROA Application No.E/ROA/53684/2014 in Excise Appeal No.E/3339/2010-EX[DB] - Misc. (ROA) ORDER NO. 50691/2015 - Dated:- 19-1-2015 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri.Manish Saharan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri.Pramod Kumar, JCDR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar The stay application filed by the appellant alongwith the appeal had been dismissed exparte vide Tribunal s order dated 01.08.2011 for non-prosecution, as on the date fixed for hearing of stay application, none representing the appellant had appeared and there was no intimation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the element of interest and penalty and filed fresh stay application on 23rd June, 2014 which is under consideration today. In pursuance of the Tribunal s directions on 02.09.2014, the appellant have also filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing of restoration application and stating that since their employee of Mr. Vinay Dubey looking after the excise matters had left the job in October, 2011, they could not pay attention to the Tribunal s final order dated 17.10.2011, and that only in January, 2014, when the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department they became aware of this matter and the restoration application was filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers lying with him, they were not aware of the dismissal of their appeal and they became aware about this only when the recovery proceedings were initiated in January, 2014 and at that stage only, after depositing the entire duty on 10.01.2014 they filed restoration application. There is no dispute that they subsequently have also paid the entire interest on duty as well as penalty and as such the requirement of section 35 F have been fully complied with. In view of these circumstances, we are of the view that the be ends of justice require that appeals must be heard on merit for which the restoration application would have to be allowed. We are supported in our view by judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Priya Dyers v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
