1999 (11) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T). - We have heard M.S. Jagesha, advocate on the restoration application. The facts are as follows. 2. On the stay application filed by the present applicant along with appeal No. E/4647 & 4648/94 SB(WR), the Tribunal passed a common order on 3-4-1995. The applicants complied with the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the 2 appeals. 3. Shri Jagesh very fairly refers to the Tribunal's finding reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 1023 (81 Electronics v. CCE, Mumbai). In this order the Tribunal in identical circumstances had not found reasons to restore the appeals. 4. The effect of revival would only be for seeking dismissal of the appeal as infructuous. It is not that the applicants have lost anything....