Tribunal corrects address error, reopens appeal, grants condonation, and sets for regular hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the injustice caused by the incorrect address issue leading to non-receipt of notices, recalling the ex-parte Order and restoring the appeal in its original number. The Tribunal attributed the mistake to the Revenue, ultimately deciding in favor of the applicant and allowing the condonation of delay application. The appeal was scheduled for regular hearing following the restoration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Recalling of Tribunal Order
2. Restoration of appeal
3. Condonation of delay in filing the restoration of appeal

Recalling of Tribunal Order:
The applicant filed three applications, including one for re-calling of the Tribunal Order No. A/196/IO/CSTB/C-II dated 15.06.2010, claiming it was passed ex-parte without their hearing. The applicant argued that they never received the appeal copy or hearing notice, as the address mentioned by the Revenue was incorrect. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant's address was wrongly stated by the Revenue, leading to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was unjust due to the incorrect address issue caused by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the Order and restored the appeal in its original number.

Restoration of Appeal:
The applicant's counsel highlighted that the Tribunal's ex-parte order was unjust as the applicant was not properly notified due to the incorrect address provided by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the addresses mentioned in the Order-in-Appeal and the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal, attributing the error to the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the ex-parte order was a result of the Revenue's mistake in furnishing the wrong address. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal in its original number.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Restoration of Appeal:
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing the restoration of appeal due to non-receipt of notices caused by the Revenue's error in mentioning the incorrect address. The Tribunal considered the facts presented by both parties and found that the applicant's address was wrongly stated by the Revenue, leading to the non-delivery of crucial notices. The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order was unjust and ruled in favor of the applicant, recalling the Order and allowing the COD application. The appeal was scheduled for regular hearing after the restoration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the injustice caused by the incorrect address issue and recalled the ex-parte Order, restoring the appeal in its original number.

---