Tribunal denies appeal restoration despite error correction & representation, citing no justification for location-specific restoration.

The tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, despite correcting an error in the previous order and specifying the duty amount. The tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order as both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The appellant was represented during the hearing, and interest was confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The rejection was based on the lack of justification for restoring the appeal related to a specific location.

---

---

Issues:
- Restoration of appeal for a specific location
- Rejection of application for restoration

Restoration of appeal for a specific location:
In the case, two appeals related to the same appellant were decided through rejection. The appellants filed an application in September 2008 seeking restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, which pertained to Godhra, as they were only heard in appeal No. 15 of 2003 concerning their Bharuch operations. The advocate argued that the issue in both appeals was identical except for the amount of duty confirmed against them. However, the tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order. It was acknowledged that both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The tribunal confirmed that the appellant was represented during the hearing and stated that interest is liable to be confirmed in cases of delayed demand of service tax. An error was noted in the previous order where the amount of duty involved was not specified. This mistake was rectified by specifying the duty amount of Rs. 7,53,858, which was initially missing after the mention of Rs. 65 thousand. Despite this correction, the tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003.

Rejection of application for restoration:
The tribunal, after hearing the learned Deputy Registrar, made the decision not to re-call the previous order. The tribunal clarified that both appeals were related to the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different places. It was emphasized that the appellant was present during the hearing, and the tribunal had already concluded that interest is to be confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The tribunal corrected an error in the previous order by specifying the duty amount that was initially missing. Despite rectifying this mistake, the tribunal proceeded to reject the application for restoration filed by the applicant.

---