TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Appeal restoration denied due to delay in filing & failure to update address. Timely filing emphasized.</h1> <h3>BHARATI AIRTEL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the restoration of appeal application due to the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing the application. The change of ... Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that:- Period of filing of appeal is three months and by considering the said fact, the application for restoration also ought to have been filed within the maximum period of three months from the dismissal of appeal, though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing on application for setting aside the order of dismissal. The same view is also expressed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.J. Synthetic Mills (2010 (3) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). The decision placed by the ld. Advocate would not apply to the present case. We have also noticed that the applicant did not provide any sufficient reason for long delay in filing the ROA application. Hence, we find that the ROA application filed by the applicant is not sustainable - Decided against assessee. Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. Interpretation of Rule 20 of Cestat Procedural Rules. Applicability of time limit for filing restoration application. Sufficiency of reasons for delay in filing the restoration application.The judgment in the present case revolves around the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant filed a restoration application after the appeal was dismissed due to non-receipt of hearing notice and change of counsel without intimating the Registry about the change of address. The Tribunal observed that the change of address was not communicated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Regarding the interpretation of Rule 20 of the Cestat Procedural Rules, the advocate for the appellant argued that the Tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal without considering the merits. He cited judgments from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in support of this argument. However, the Tribunal noted that the change of address not being intimated to the Registry was a crucial factor in the dismissal of the appeal.The issue of the time limit for filing a restoration application was also deliberated upon. The advocate for the appellant referred to judgments from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, highlighting that a normal period of three months from the date of the order would apply for filing such applications. The Tribunal, considering these arguments, emphasized that the application for restoration should have been filed within the maximum period of three months from the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the restoration application, leading to the dismissal of the restoration application.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration of appeal application, citing the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing the application. The Tribunal relied on precedents from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support its decision. The miscellaneous application for a change of cause title was also disposed of in the same order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
