2009 (4) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fe to a body lying dead for 11 years - Where after taking note of the provisions of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was observed that though the said Rule provides for restoration of the appeal only when dismissed for non-prosecution but Tribunal can restore appeals dismissed for non-compliance, provided there exists reasonable cause. After observing so, period of four years from the dismissal of appeal was found to be unreasonable and the application of restoration was rejected.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.D. Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bout 10 years by the appellant is not in accordance with the judicial discipline. The appellant never honoured the stay order passed by the Tribunal and even after the same was dismissed, appellant never cared to deposit the amount and get the appeal restored. The result of the litigation carried out by some other assessee cannot be made the basis for restoring the appeal after a gap of 10 years. 5. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides, we agree with the Ld. SDR. Applicant having allowed the appeal to remain buried for a period of 10 years cannot seek revival of the same after such a long gap, especially when the appellant did not bother to get the appeal revived after its dismissal by showing their bona fide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndoned. It is a clear case of latches on the part of the applicant and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to them. 6. At this stage, we also take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tin Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 257 (Del.). Where after taking note of the provisions of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was observed that though the said Rule provides for restoration of the appeal only when dismissed for non-prosecution but Tribunal can restore appeals dismissed for non-compliance, provided there exists reasonable cause. After observing so, period of four years from the dismissal of appeal was found to be unreasonable and the application .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X