9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the High Court and seeking restoration of appeal. Since, 4 years have been passed since passing of the Tribunal s order, there are no merit in the ROA application being marred with negligence. No plausible reason has been submitted by the Applicant justifying the cause of delay. In more or less in similar circumstances, this Tribunal in M/S. NATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL GST, BHOPAL [ 2022 (6) TMI 163 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] rejecting the application for restoration on account of inordinate delay observed The appellant is already been observed to be negligent and thus he is held to not to be entitled for the discretionary relief. In the given circumstances, under no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng no illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities justifying interference. He submits that the appellant was never issued the order dismissing their appeal hence they were not aware of the said order. They came to know about the order recently only in 2021; consequently they filed present miscellaneous application seeking restoration of appeal. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue objected to the said application submitting that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 03/10/2017 and the Hon ble High Court s order was passed thereafter in November, 2017; the appellant had not brought to the notice of the Hon ble High Court that an appeal already filed before the Tribunal has been pending for disposal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as: 10. It stands clear that lack of bonafides and the apparent negligence on part of the party seeking relief is a significant and relevant fact to be considered while dealing with the situation as one in hand. Hon ble Apex Court has held that even the affidavit and supporting certificate may not merit consideration. As already observed above, the application in hand itself has been filed after substantial delay. The appellant is already been observed to be negligent and thus he is held to not to be entitled for the discretionary relief. In the given circumstances, under no stretch of imagination there could be a justification to file an application at the sweet will of the applicant. We draw our support from the decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
