9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed by Tribunal without hearing the applicant, justification for seeking restoration, absence of party and counsel during the original appeal, scope for modification based on lack of discussion in the impugned order.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved a case where an appeal was dismissed without hearing the applicant, leading to a restoration application being filed. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the restoration application on the ground of limitation without discussing its merits. The Tribunal noted that the absence of the party and their counsel during the original appeal needed to be justified, and the explanation offered needed to be satisfactory. In this case, the Tribunal found that there was justification in seeking restoration of the appeal in toto, regardless of its merits. The Tribunal allowed the present application for modification, restoring the appeal to its original number and setting a new date for the hearing. The Tribunal highlighted that the previous order dismissing the restoration application did not discuss the reasons for the dismissal, leaving scope for the applicant to file a new application for modification. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider whether the absence of the party and their counsel during the original appeal was justified or if they were prevented due to sufficient cause. The judgment underscored the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for any such absence and ensuring that all aspects were considered before making a decision on restoration. Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of the case, emphasizing the need for proper justification and satisfactory explanations for any absence during the appeal process. By allowing the restoration of the appeal and setting a new hearing date, the Tribunal aimed to ensure that the applicant's rights were upheld and that a fair opportunity for presenting their case was provided.
|
