Company loses appeal restoration after missing seven hearings and delaying new counsel appointment for one year

CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the restoration of appeal filed by a private limited company after the appellant failed to appear for seven scheduled hearings. The appellant waited one year after their previous advocate withdrew to appoint new counsel, only engaging representation after the final order was issued. CESTAT held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and requires exceptional circumstances with valid reasons. The Tribunal noted it had already exceeded the statutory requirement of three adjournments by offering seven opportunities, yet the appellant consistently failed to appear without justifiable cause, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of Appeals filed by M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd against CESTAT Final Order, failure to appear for hearings, validity of restoration of appeal, service of final hearing notice, dismissal of appeals on merits.

Analysis:
1. Restoration of Appeals: M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd filed Restoration of Appeals against CESTAT Final Order. The appellant and co-noticee failed to appear for hearings despite multiple opportunities provided by the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel sought restoration citing reasons like non-service of hearing notice and health issues of co-noticee's advocate. The Departmental Authorized Representative opposed restoration, highlighting the appellant's non-appearance during hearings and failure to present evidence to refute the allegations.

2. Failure to Appear for Hearings: The Tribunal scheduled multiple hearings for the appeals, but neither the appellant nor the co-noticee appeared. The appellant's advocate withdrew, and subsequent notices were served, but no new counsel was appointed. The Tribunal noted the lack of interest from the appellants in pursuing their case, as evidenced by delayed appointment of a new advocate after the Final Order was issued.

3. Validity of Restoration of Appeal: The Tribunal emphasized that Restoration of Appeal is not a right but allowed in exceptional cases with valid reasons. The appellants failed to provide justifiable reasons for their non-appearance during the hearings. The Tribunal considered the tardiness in following up on the appeal and the lack of convincing reasons for restoration.

4. Service of Final Hearing Notice: The appellant claimed non-service of the final hearing notice, but the Tribunal pointed out that orders are uploaded on the website and deemed served. The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct lacking in diligence and dismissed the claim of non-service as a valid reason for restoration.

5. Dismissal of Appeals on Merits: The Tribunal clarified that the Final Order was passed after considering all grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties. The Tribunal decided the case on merits, not technical grounds, as per the Supreme Court's ruling. Despite offering more opportunities than required, the appellant failed to appear, leading to the dismissal of the Restoration of Appeals.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Restoration of Appeals filed by the appellant and co-noticee, emphasizing the lack of valid reasons for non-appearance during hearings and the decision being based on merits. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 08.11.2024, highlighting the importance of diligence and timely action in pursuing legal remedies before the Tribunal.

---