9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar] 1. These are two applications arising out of Miscellaneous order No.(M/30100/2016 dated 26.07.2016) 2. On behalf of the applicants Ld. Advocate Sh. Parthasarathy, makes the following submissions on the application E/ROA/30664/2016 (in Appeal No.E/411/2006.). a) The Appellate Tribunal vide its Miscellaneous Order No.M/30100/2016 dated 27.07.2016 had dismissed the restoration Application filed by the applicants bearing Application No.24143/2014 in Appeal No.411/2006. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant solely on the ground that the Appellant has filed the Restoration application after the expiry of 7 years from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.10.2014 Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Bangalore requested the Appellant to reconstruct the file as the appeal was weeded out as the records are more than 5 years old. 26.07.2016 Restoration Application rejected by CESTAT on the ground that the application was filed after 7 years. d) Although they had filed the ROA applications on 14.12.2007, however no intimation was received from CESTAT, Bangalore. Only in 2014, they received a letter dated 14.10.2014 from the Tribunal informing that case records pertaining to Appeal E/411/2006 had been weeded out and requested entire set of case records along with copy of final order for reconstructions and listing of their ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Miscellaneous Application 24144/2014 dated 21.04.2014. v. However, the Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Order No.30100/2016 dated 26.07.2016, on the ground of enormous delay of 7 years in filing the Application, dismissed the application. vi. Tribunal has proceeded on mistaken premise that the Applicant filed the ROA application only on 21-04-2014, even though obtained COD clearance in 2014. However the fact on record is that Applicant never got clearance from COD and that matter was pending for clearance till the issue was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Hence the finding of delayed filing of ROA Application, even after obtaining COD clearance is incorrect. vii. There is thus a mistake apparent on record which needs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable to identify or locate any mistake apparent on the face of the record. 6.4 Ld. Advocate for the appellants has also fairly conceded that these aspects highlighted in the current miscellaneous application had not been submitted or argued during the course of the proceedings, for the earlier miscellaneous application. 6.5 In the event we are afraid that there is no merit what-so-ever in the present Application No.E/ROM/30658/2016 in respect of Appeal No.E/822/2003, for which reason it is dismissed. 7.1 In respect of Application No. ROM/30664/2016, (relating to Appeal E/411/2006) 7.2 In respect of Appeal E/411/2006 it now emerges that Applicant had already filed a ROA Application in 2007 itself, on 14.12.2007, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
