Improper service of appellate order can justify restoration after long delay where notice was sent to the wrong address.

Where an appellate order dismissing an appeal for default is not served at the address furnished in the appeal papers, the appellant cannot be blamed for non-receipt. On those facts, even a delay of more than six years in filing the restoration application was excused because improper service explained the lapse. The restoration application was therefore allowed, the earlier default dismissal was recalled, and the appeal was restored for regular hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default should be allowed when the order of dismissal was sent to an address different from the one furnished in the appeal papers, and whether the delay in filing the restoration application was attributable to the appellant.

Analysis: The appeal had earlier been dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The address required to be used for notices, as mentioned in the appeal application, was not used by the registry while forwarding the final order. The order was instead sent to a different address, and on these facts the appellant could not be blamed for not receiving it. In those circumstances, the delay of more than six years in moving the restoration request was not treated as a ground to deny relief, since the absence of proper service explained the lapse.

Conclusion: The restoration application was allowed and the earlier dismissal order was recalled in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was restored to the file for regular hearing, and the prior default dismissal ceased to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate order is not served at the address furnished for notices, delay in seeking restoration may be excused and the dismissal for default can be recalled.

---