Appellate Tribunal restores appeal due to non-receipt of hearing intimations

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's restoration application for appeal due to non-receipt of hearing intimations and dismissal order. The appellant, a closed factory owner, claimed unawareness of the case developments, while the Respondent argued otherwise. The Tribunal noted the factory's closure and subsequent actions by the building owner to prevent auction, leading to the restoration approval in the interest of justice.

---

---

Issues: Application for restoration of appeal due to non-receipt of hearing intimations and dismissal order.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the appellant, a proprietary concern whose factory had remained closed for an extended period, filed an application for restoration of appeal. The appellant claimed that they did not receive notices regarding the case due to the factory closure. The department initiated recovery proceedings after the appeal was dismissed, prompting the owner of the factory building to take corrective action upon receiving the dismissal order. The appellant, represented by a new advocate, argued that they were unaware of the hearing and dismissal order, emphasizing the substantial amount involved in the case. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the appellant had received the intimations and failed to act. The Tribunal considered these submissions, noting that the present owner of the factory premises was pursuing the case to prevent auction of the building. The Tribunal acknowledged the circumstances under which the restoration application was filed and, in the interest of justice, allowed the application and scheduled the appeal for final hearing on a specified date.

This judgment revolves around the issue of non-receipt of hearing intimations and dismissal order by the appellant, leading to the application for restoration of appeal. The appellant's argument centered on the lack of awareness due to the factory closure, while the Respondent contended that the appellant had received the intimations but failed to respond. The Tribunal considered the unique situation where the present owner of the factory premises took steps to prevent auction of the building after the dismissal order, indicating a transfer of responsibility in pursuing the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted the application for restoration, recognizing the circumstances and setting a date for the final hearing.

---