TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners were not served with the notice of hearing, some delay in enquiring the progress in appeal and thereafter approaching the forum for recalling the order can well be understood - petitioners did not enquire about their own appeal before the Tribunal for more than 16 years. In the meantime, the entire record is lost. Documents, orders, notings, receipt, none of them would be available. At this stage, therefore to put heavy burden on the Registry of the Tribunal to establish that not only the notice of hearing was dispatched, the same was served would be too onerous a burden to be discharged. Petitioners cannot cast away their responsibility of pursuing their own appeal and at least inquiring about it from the Tribunal or their lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appearance under Rule 20 CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982. This order, the petitioners did not challenge for years together. The case of the petitioners is that no notice of hearing before the Tribunal was received by them. The order dated 27.10.97 was also not served. They were, therefore, not aware about the dismissal of the appeal before the Tribunal. Only when the department issued notice dated 13.2.13, seeking recovery of the outstanding dues that the petitioners realized about the movement before the Tribunal. The petitioners thereafter, moved an application before the Tribunal on 17.2.2013 and prayed for recall of the order dated 27.10.97. In addition to contending that the petitioners were not aware about the date of hearing or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal in the year 1997. In response to such application, the petitioners were told by the Registry of the Tribunal that the appeal papers were not traceable/available with their office. They were also asked to submit an affidavit that no other orders were passed by the Tribunal in the said appeal after the order dated 27.10.97. In yet another communication, the petitioners were sent xerox copy of the dispatch register for post which contains besides others, entry No.8437 addressed to petitioner No.1 company. On the basis of such facts, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have recalled its order dated 27.10.97. Such order was passed ex parte. The petitioners were never served with the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh served no one appeared before the Tribunal. If within a reasonable time, the petitioners had approached and prima facie established that the dispatch of notice does not necessarily mean receipt thereof by the petitioner and even the contents of the Tribunal s order are erroneous, we would have certainly looked into the matter. In the present case, the petitioners cannot cast away their responsibility of pursuing their own appeal and at least inquiring about it from the Tribunal or their legal representative as to the progress of the matter. Right after 1988 when the pre-deposit order was passed, the petitioner never inquired about the progress in the appeal. More than 25 years thus passed before the petitioners started making inquiries. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
