2004 (6) TMI 461 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of dismissed appeals under Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules due to refusal to accept hearing notice.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with applications filed by the appellants seeking restoration of their respective appeals, which were dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Final Order noted that the appellants had refused to accept the hearing notice issued by the Tribunal. The applications were supported by an affidavit claiming that the refusal to receive the notice, if at all, could have been due to oversight. The affidavit also mentioned that there was no responsible person in the office of the company to receive the notice. Despite these submissions not being very convincing, the Tribunal considered a statement in the affidavit indicating that the case law favored the appellants, suggesting that there was no need to refuse the hearing notice.

The affidavit was signed by Shri Rajendra Pathak, who claimed to be the Asstt. General Manager (Commercial) of the appellant-company. Although the affidavit did not explicitly state that the deponent was the successor-in-office of the person who verified the Memoranda of Appeals, the Tribunal assumed this to be the case after hearing the Counsel for the appellants. The Memoranda of Appeals were originally verified and signed by Shri S. Sundar Raj, Manager (Commercial) and authorised signatory. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the affidavit, decided to allow the applications and restore the appeals to their original numbers for the ends of justice to be served. The appeals were to proceed in due course, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellants in this matter.