TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
STAY APPLICATION - CESTAT
20 Nov 2010 
3 Replies 
2686 Views Asked by
Appellant's default can lead to dismissal; restoration possible on showing sufficient cause under procedural rule.
Appellant default resulted in dismissal despite prior deposit and submission of a compliance challan; the procedural rule permits the Tribunal, if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non appearance, to set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal, and the suggested remedy is filing a miscellaneous application for restoration with evidence of compliance and sufficient cause. (AI Summary)
Appellant default resulted in dismissal despite prior deposit and submission of a compliance challan; the procedural rule permits the Tribunal, if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non appearance, to set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal, and the suggested remedy is filing a miscellaneous application for restoration with evidence of compliance and sufficient cause. (AI Summary)
ONE company had deposited the amount ordered by CESTAT Bench within the given time against their stay application and submitted the challan alongwith letter intimating the compliance of the Bench order ten days before the stipulated period. On 25.10.10 matter came before the BENCH and as appellant had not appeared in person { but had submitted the compliance report to the Registry }, the BEnch ruled that no evidence is produced regardindg deposit and non appeared for appellants. Appeal dismissed. Kindly let us know, whether the action of CESTAT to dismiss the stay appln & appeal is correct & what is the remedy to restore it.