TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this bench dismissed both the appeals on 26.3.2004 - the present applications cannot be rejected for want of explanation of delay thereof - The fact that Committee on Disputes clearance was duly intimated to the Registry by the appellant on 15.3.2004 is undeniable - though there is no explanation for non-appearance of the appellant or their counsel on 26.3.2004, we are inclined to allow these app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the Registry in a letter dated 12.3.2004. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that, on 26.3.2004 when the appeals were dismissed by this bench, the appellant was not represented. Had there been due representation for the appellant on the said date, the factum of COD clearance would have been brought to the notice of this bench, in which event the appeals might not have been dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications are only liable to be dismissed. In this connection, she relies on Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah vs. UOI: 2012 (282) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) wherein a period of three months was considered to be the reasonable period of limitation for filing restoration application against dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with the Tribunal s direction for pre-deposit and, in the absence of explanation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for the party before the bench on 26.3.2004. In the circumstances, having found no evidence of COD s clearance having been obtained by the PSU, this bench dismissed both the appeals on 26.3.2004. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the present applications cannot be rejected for want of explanation of delay thereof. The fact that CODs clearance was duly intimated to the Registry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
