Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the restoration application before the Tribunal ought to have been allowed after dismissal of the appeal for default, in view of the manner in which the hearing date was communicated and the existence of sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Analysis: Rule 18 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requires notification of the date and place of hearing. The Court found that the record did not satisfactorily show that the next date of hearing was properly communicated either by notice or by endorsement of the date by an authorised person, while the interim order also did not clearly reflect the hearing date. In these circumstances, the dismissal for non-appearance could not be treated as immune from restoration. Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits restoration where sufficient cause is shown, and the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction rather than a pedantic one.
Conclusion: The restoration application should have been allowed, and the Tribunal's refusal was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where proper notice of the hearing date is not clearly established and non-appearance is explained by sufficient cause, the appellate forum should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach and restore the appeal.