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 an appeal dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 should be restored, and whether alleged non-compliance with the stay order under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 could be treated as the ground for the earlier dismissal.
Analysis: The dismissal order was examined and found to be based on default of appearance, with rejection of the adjournment request. The reference in that order to the High Court's direction for action within eight weeks was read in the context of the deposit and undertaking requirement, not as a time limit for disposal of the appeal. Since the earlier dismissal was not founded on non-compliance with the stay order, the question whether the appellants had complied with the stay conditions under Section 129E was not relevant to the present restoration request and was left open for consideration, if raised, after restoration.
Conclusion: The appeal was restored and the dismissal order was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: An appeal dismissed for default of appearance is liable to be restored where the dismissal was not on the ground of non-compliance with stay conditions, and objections relating to such non-compliance are not to be ined in the restoration proceeding.