2018 (6) TMI 1699 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal denies modification request for lack of grounds and evidence.

Satprakash Goyal Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the appellant's application for modification of a final order in appeal no. C/1136/2012. Despite the ... Maintainability of application - adjournments were being sought without justifiable reason for last four occasions - HELD THAT:- When this matter was called out on the finally adjourned date of 5th June 2018, there was neither a request for adjournment nor the presence of a representative of the applicant - matter is proceeded to be disposed off. Except for a mention, in passing, of the lack of financial wherewithal to comply with the terms of deposit ordered by the Tribunal, no ground, or documentation to support such ground, is on record. It is observed that the application is composed almost entirely of generalities of allegations that are not supported with evidence and of vague philosophy that rambles about the adequacy of grounds for subjecting an order of pre-deposit of the Tribunal to fresh scrutiny. In the circumstances, and in the face of continued lack of representation despite adequate opportunity being offered to the applicant, there are no other option but to dismiss this application - application dismissed. Issues involved: Application for modification of final order, Lack of representation by the appellant, Dismissal of the application1. Application for modification of final order:The appellant sought modification of the final order dated 11th November 2014 in appeal no. C/1136/2012. Despite multiple adjournments requested without valid reasons, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the application. The appellant mentioned a lack of financial capacity to comply with the deposit terms ordered by the Tribunal. However, the application lacked specific grounds or supporting documentation for this claim. The Tribunal noted that the application contained general allegations without concrete evidence to back them up. The appellant's arguments were deemed vague and lacking in substance, particularly regarding the scrutiny of the pre-deposit order by the Tribunal.2. Lack of representation by the appellant:On the final adjourned date, neither a request for adjournment nor the presence of the appellant's representative was noted. Despite multiple opportunities given to the appellant, no valid representation was made before the Tribunal. The lack of engagement from the appellant's side was highlighted as a significant factor in the decision-making process.3. Dismissal of the application:Given the absence of a representative and the inadequacy of grounds presented in the application, the Tribunal concluded that there was no option but to dismiss the appellant's application for modification. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had failed to provide substantial evidence or valid arguments to support their case. Consequently, the application was dismissed by the Tribunal.This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved the appellant's application for the modification of a final order, highlighting the lack of representation by the appellant and ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application due to insufficient grounds and evidence presented.