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 non-pursuance & delay in filing. Emphasizes timely legal actions.</h1> <h3>M/s. Delhi International Airport P. Ltd. ESCROW PSF (SC) Versus Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II</h3> The tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal due to the correct observation of non-pursuance by the appellant and the unreasonable ... Seeking restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for want of pursuance on part of the appellant - non-service of notice - sufficient cause explaining apparent delay in filing the impugned application not given - HELD THAT:- Perusal of application shows that the address at which the notices were issued to the appellant in the year 2014 and were received with the remark “addressee not known” is the address acknowledged to be one at which the defect memo was served to the applicant-appellant and was actually received and complied with by the applicant. In view of this acknowledgement, the observation of the impugned final order are opined to have the correct observation of non-pursuance on part of the appellant, which stands corroborated from his absence even for today. Otherwise also, the final order of 2014 has been prayed to be recalled vide an application moved in September, 2019 i.e. after a delay of almost 5 years. The ground mentioned in para 3 of the impugned application about presumption of the appeal to have been pending during this period is opined absolutely unreasonable. There is no explanation for not enquiring the status of the pending appeal during those 5 years. There are no justified reason to accept the impugned application. Same is therefore, dismissed, not only for want of pursuance but also for want of sufficient cause explaining apparent delay in filing the impugned application. Issues:1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of pursuance.2. Delay in filing application for recalling the final order.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with an application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed due to lack of pursuance by the appellant. The applicant, who did not appear for the hearing, moved the application for restoration. The tribunal noted that the address where notices were issued to the appellant in 2014 was acknowledged as the correct address where the defect memo was served and complied with by the appellant. The tribunal found the observation of non-pursuance to be correct, especially given the appellant's absence during the current proceedings. The tribunal did not find any justified reason to accept the application for restoration based on these findings.2. Additionally, the tribunal addressed the delay in filing the application for recalling the final order. The application was moved in September 2019, almost five years after the final order of 2014. The tribunal deemed the ground mentioned in the application about the presumption of the appeal being pending during this period as unreasonable. There was no explanation provided for not enquiring about the status of the pending appeal during the five-year delay. Considering the lack of sufficient cause explaining the delay and the conduct of the appellant, the tribunal dismissed the application not only for want of pursuance but also for the apparent delay in filing the application.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal, citing the correct observation of non-pursuance by the appellant and the unreasonable delay in filing the application for recalling the final order. The judgment highlights the importance of timely pursuit of legal matters and providing sufficient cause for any delays in the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
