Appellate Tribunal Grants Restoration Appeals, Orders Technical Opinion from Expert

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals for restoration, considering the genuine reasons provided for non-appearance and delay in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal remanded the matters for a technical opinion from the Central Machines Tool Institute to determine the nature of the imported machines, with the expert's opinion being conclusive and binding on both parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of dismissed appeals for non-appearance under Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
2. Issue of availability of Notification No. 48/78 to imported machines.
3. Delay in filing restoration application after the dismissal of appeals in 1997.
4. Whether machines imported are Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring machines or Universal Milling Machines.
5. Remand of the matter for technical opinion by Central Machines Tool Institute, Bangalore.

Issue 1 - Restoration of Dismissed Appeals:
The Appellate Tribunal received applications from M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. for the restoration of Appeals No. C-329/93-B and C-333/93-B, which were dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The consultant for the Appellant explained the circumstances leading to the non-appearance, stating that they were unaware of the dismissal as they had not received the notice or the final order. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided and found them genuine, thus recalling the earlier order and restoring the appeals for final hearing.

Issue 2 - Availability of Notification No. 48/78 to Imported Machines:
The issue involved in the appeals was whether the machines imported by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. were Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring machines or Universal Milling Machines. The Appellate Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a technical opinion from the Central Machines Tool Institute, Bangalore. Both the Appellant's consultant and the Departmental Representative agreed to this remand based on relevant legal precedents.

Issue 3 - Delay in Filing Restoration Application:
The Departmental Representative opposed the restoration, citing the delay in filing the application after the appeals were dismissed in 1997. However, the Tribunal considered the reasons provided by the Appellant for the delay, including not receiving the intimation of hearing and the final order, and found their interest in pursuing the matter evident. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the restoration and proceeded with the appeals for final hearing.

Issue 4 - Nature of Imported Machines:
The Appellant's consultant requested that all matters be remanded to the Commissioner for a technical opinion from the Central Machines Tool Institute, Bangalore, regarding the nature of the imported machines. The Departmental Representative also agreed to this remand, referencing a judgment by the Supreme Court in a similar matter. The Tribunal decided to remand all three matters to the adjudicating authority for examination by an expert nominated by the Central Machines Tool Institute, with the expert's opinion being binding on both sides.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed all the appeals by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to obtain a technical opinion from an expert nominated by the Central Machines Tool Institute, Bangalore, regarding the nature of the imported machines. The Tribunal emphasized that the expert's opinion would be conclusive and binding on both parties involved in the appeals.

---