Restoration for procedural default allowed where jurisdiction shifted and the record was later completed, reviving the appeal for merits.

An appeal dismissed for procedural non-compliance may be restored where the default results from a genuine jurisdictional transfer and the required record is later placed on file. Here, the Tribunal accepted that the matter had shifted from one Commissionerate to another, the notice seeking the Order-in-Original reached the new jurisdiction only after dismissal, and the omission was not deliberate. On that basis, the earlier default was condoned, the restoration application was allowed, and the departmental appeal was revived for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, earlier dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, should be restored in view of the change in jurisdiction and the delayed receipt of the Tribunal's notice.

Analysis: The application was supported by the fact that the subject matter had shifted from the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Rajkot to the Commissionerate of Customs, Ahmedabad, and the notice requiring production of the Order-in-Original reached the new Commissionerate after the dismissal order had already been passed. The Order-in-Original was also subsequently placed on record, showing that the departmental explanation for the earlier default was genuine and that the non-compliance was not deliberate.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was allowed and the appeal was restored to its original number for hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the earlier procedural default and revived the departmental appeal for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal dismissed for procedural non-compliance may be restored where the default is shown to have arisen from a genuine jurisdictional transfer and the record is subsequently completed.

---