Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (12) TMI 1099

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew advocate. Further, when the Final Order was issued on 19.03.2024 which as per the prevalent practice is also uploaded, there are no justifiable reason for the appellants to appoint an advocate on 23.08.2024 to pursue the appeal, merely for filing the present Restoration of Appeal (ROA). This clearly evidences that the appellant and the co-noticee have failed to take interest to agitate their appeals before this Tribunal. When an advocate withdraws his Vakalatnama, it was the responsibility of the appellants to appoint another advocate to represent them during the proceedings of appeal. Restoration of Appeal (ROA) is not a matter of right of the appellants. It is not to be permitted in routine manner, and is permitted only in exceptional .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the co-noticee) against the CESTAT Final Order No. 55357-55360 /2024 dated 19-03-2024 in respect of Customs Appeal Nos. C/50671/2021 and Customs Appeal Nos. C/50858/2021 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are reproduced for ease of reference. The appellant obtained an Advance Authorization for export of garments under the category of textile general and were entitled to import raw material which was to be used in the manufacture of the export products. Intelligence was received that such fabrics imported under the Advance Authorisation were being diverted by the importer for sale in the open market. Searches were conducted and imported goods were seized, on the reasonable belief that there was violation of condition no. 14 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of appeal. iv. To allow a Fair chance to the appellant to argue the case. 4. Sh. S.K. Rahman, Departmental Authorized Representative has opposed such a restoration of appeal with the following submissions: i. Six hearings have been offered to the appellant but no one has appeared. As per Proviso to Sec 129B (1A) of the Customs Act, 1962, not more than three adjournments are to be allowed. Hence under Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, Hon'ble CESTAT has passed final order. ii. As per para 6.5 of CESTAT Final Order, "Sh. R K Goyal, failed to appear for recording of statement in spite of many summons. No evidence has been placed before us to negate any of the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order". .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant submitted that he was appointed on 23.08.2024 to pursue the appeal. In this context, we note that the appellant waited for one full year after the withdrawal of the Vakalatnama of the earlier advocate, to approach and appoint a new advocate. Further, when the Final Order was issued on 19.03.2024 which as per the prevalent practice is also uploaded, we also find no justifiable reason for the appellants to appoint an advocate on 23.08.2024 to pursue the appeal, merely for filing the present Restoration of Appeal (ROA). This clearly evidences that the appellant and the co-noticee have failed to take interest to agitate their appeals before this Tribunal. When an advocate withdraws his Vakalatnama, it was the responsibility of the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... following up their appeal before this Tribunal, and this conduct does not convince us to accept the submissions of the Ld Counsel. 9. We further note that it is not a case where the appeal has been dismissed for want of presence or prosecution. The CESTAT Final Order No. 55357-55360 /2024 dated 19-03-2024 has been passed on merits after considering all the grounds of appeal and submissions of the appellant in the Appeal Memorandum and by considering the submissions of Revenue. It is not a case where appeal has been dismissed on any technical grounds. In this regard, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar [2008-TMI-5141-SC] has held that Tribunal cannot dismiss appeals due to absence of appellant is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates