TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies restoration of Final Order due to procedural errors. Timely filing and compliance crucial.</h1> <h3>CARBON & CHEMICALS (I) LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of a Final Order due to procedural deficiencies. The appellant's failure to file the application ... Appeal - Restoration of Issues:Application for restoration of a Final Order dismissed by the Tribunal.Analysis:The case involved an application for restoration of a Final Order passed by the Tribunal along with a batch of matters. The appellant filed a restoration application seeking to restore Final Order Nos. 368 to 398/2001, which were disposed of on 8-3-2001. The appellant claimed that the Tribunal had initially dismissed all the appeals but later recalled the order of dismissal and restored the appeals to their original number. However, the restoration application was found to lack essential elements. It was noted that the application was signed by the Advocate and not filed by the party with a verification or an affidavit, rendering it not maintainable for rectification of mistakes under Section 35C(2).The Tribunal emphasized that an application for restoration must be filed within six months of the order, as per the amended provision. The application in question was filed on 19th January 2004, which was beyond the stipulated period after the amended Section 35C(2) came into force on 11-5-2002. The appellant's argument that they were seeking restoration of the order passed on 8-3-2001 was deemed invalid due to the existence of the amended section and the failure to file the application within six months from the incorporation of the new provision. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the application was required to be rejected based on these grounds.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the restoration application on multiple counts. The lack of filing by the party, absence of verification or affidavit, and the application being filed beyond the prescribed period post the amendment to Section 35C(2) were significant factors leading to the rejection of the application. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines in seeking restoration of orders before the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
