TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 dismisses appeals for non-appearance, orders restoration on cost basis.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed appeals for non-prosecution due to the appellants' repeated failure to appear. Despite the appellants' claim of being unaware of ... Restoration of appeals - appeals dismissed for non-prosecution - Held that:- It has been observed that the non-representation of the appellants is not restricted to 30.03.2012 only. The case has been listed several times earlier on 19.12.2011, 20.01.2012 and 30.03.2012 was given as a last chance. Therefore, it is not a case for non-appearance on single occasion but on several occasions. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant that they have been out of business since 2005 & engaged an employee who on not receiving his salary did no informed them is not convincing as to why they were not represented on earlier occasions. Since the case has been dismissed for non-prosecution, the applications for restoration should be considered only on cost basis - direct the appellants to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- for each of the appeals to the credit of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva within four weeks from today and report compliance on 15.01.2013. On such compliance, the appeals and stay applications shall be restored to their original numbers. Issues: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecutionAnalysis:1. The judgment pertains to applications for the restoration of appeals dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-prosecution. The Tribunal's order dated 30.03.2012 dismissed the appeals as the appellants failed to appear despite multiple listings and lack of interest in pursuing the appeals.2. The appellants claimed that they were out of business since 2005 and had difficulty reviving it. They had engaged an employee to receive communications but were unaware of the hearing on 30.03.2012 as the employee did not inform them due to delayed salary. The appellants sought restoration of the appeals based on this explanation.3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that their inability to attend the hearing on 30.03.2012 was due to the employee's failure to inform them, emphasizing the need for restoration of the appeals.4. The Tribunal noted that the non-representation of the appellants was not limited to a single instance on 30.03.2012 but had occurred on multiple earlier dates as well. The Tribunal considered the appellants' explanation insufficient regarding their absence on previous occasions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution.5. As a result, the Tribunal decided that the applications for restoration would be considered only on a cost basis. The appellants were directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- for each appeal within four weeks and report compliance by 15.01.2013. Upon compliance, the appeals and stay applications would be restored to their original numbers, concluding the matter.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment regarding the restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution by the Tribunal, highlighting the reasons for dismissal, the appellants' explanations, and the Tribunal's decision to restore the appeals on a cost basis.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
