Non-prosecution dismissal and restoration of appeal turned on proved notice, compliance with conditions, and sufficient cause for delay.

Dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution was unjustified where the assessee had complied with the pre-deposit and bank guarantee directions and effective service of the hearing notice was not proved. The record also showed that the address change had been intimated, so the Rule 20 dismissal could not stand. Delay in seeking restoration was excused because the assessee had a bona fide belief that the appeal was pending, supported by renewal demands for the bank guarantee, transfer between tribunals, the death of counsel, and lack of notice. The refusal to restore was set aside and the appeal was directed to be restored for hearing on merits with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was justified despite alleged compliance with the pre-deposit and bank guarantee directions and the disputed service of hearing notice; (ii) whether the delay in moving the restoration application should be excused in the circumstances.

Issue (i): whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was justified despite alleged compliance with the pre-deposit and bank guarantee directions and the disputed service of hearing notice.

Analysis: The record showed compliance with the Tribunal's directions regarding deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee within time. The notice of hearing was not shown to have been effectively served on the assessee or his counsel, and the change of address had been intimated. On these facts, dismissal under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was not justified.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was unjustified and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the delay in moving the restoration application should be excused in the circumstances.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the assessee's bona fide belief that the appeal was still pending, reinforced by the department's demand for renewal of the bank guarantee, the transfer of the appeal between tribunals, the death of counsel, and the lack of notice. These circumstances constituted sufficient cause for restoration.

Conclusion: The delay was excused and restoration of the appeal was warranted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be restored for hearing on merits with costs imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dismissal for non-prosecution occurs despite compliance with pre-deposit conditions and absence of proved notice of hearing, and the delay in seeking restoration is satisfactorily explained by bona fide circumstances, restoration of the appeal is justified.

---