CESTAT restores appeal due to communication error, acknowledges registry lapses

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ordered the restoration of the appeal due to non-receipt of communication on the new address provided by the applicant. Despite the dismissal for default, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's case, citing errors in sending notices to the wrong address despite the request for communication to be sent to the new address. The Tribunal acknowledged the lapses in communication handling by the registry and granted the restoration of the appeal, scheduling a hearing date and initiating a preliminary enquiry into the matter to address the repeated communication errors.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of appeal due to non-receipt of communication on new address, Dismissal of appeal for default, Non-appearance before Tribunal, Communication sent to wrong address despite request for change

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand was the restoration of an appeal due to the non-receipt of communication on the new address provided by the applicant. The applicant had not received intimation of the hearing on the fresh address supplied to the registry, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for default. The Tribunal considered the applicant's argument that despite requesting all future communications to be sent to the new address, the intimation of the order of dismissal was sent to the old address. The applicant cited a decision of the Apex Court to support the contention that the appeal should not be dismissed for default. The Tribunal found merit in the applicant's case and ordered the restoration of the appeal, directing it to be fixed for a hearing on a specified date. The Tribunal also noted the serious lapse of sending notices to the old address despite the request for communication to be sent to the new address, and ordered a preliminary enquiry into this matter.

The record revealed that the appeal was initially dismissed on the ground of non-contestation on a specific date. Subsequently, the applicant made an application for the restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed due to the absence of the applicants and failure to provide a reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the previous date. Another application for restoration of the appeal was made by the applicant, stating that the intimation was not received due to being sent to the wrong address. Despite the request for future communications to be addressed to the new address, the communication was again sent to the old address, resulting in the rejection of the application in the absence of the applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's efforts to rectify the communication issue and ordered the restoration of the appeal due to the lapses in sending notices to the incorrect address.

The Tribunal scrutinized the notices sent by the registry for the restoration of the appeal application, noting that they were dispatched to the old address despite the applicant's explicit instructions to send all communications to the new address. The Tribunal recognized the applicant's valid case for restoration based on the discrepancies in communication handling by the registry. Consequently, the restoration of the appeal application was granted, and a hearing date was scheduled. Additionally, the Tribunal directed a preliminary enquiry into the matter to investigate the repeated communication errors and report the findings to the President for further action.

---