9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for Restoration of Appeal dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982; Compliance with the Stay Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; Interpretation of the Order dated 3-4-1991 regarding deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within 8 weeks.
Analysis: The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with an application for Restoration of Appeal that was dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellants, represented by learned Senior Counsel, contended that they had requested an adjournment due to various reasons, including the late receipt of the Cross Objection filed by the respondents and the unavailability of a key individual from their office. However, the Tribunal rejected the adjournment request, citing the appellants' failure to prioritize expeditious disposal of the appeal despite a directive from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal's Order dated 24-2-1992 dismissed the appeal for default of appearance. The appellants argued that the High Court's directive was related to a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within eight weeks, not the appeal's disposal timeline, referencing the Order dated 3-4-1991. In response, the learned SDR contended that the appellants had not complied with the High Court's Order dated 3-4-1991, which required them to deposit the specified amount and furnish a bank guarantee within the stipulated time. Consequently, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, due to non-compliance with the Stay Order. The appellants, in their rejoinder, emphasized that the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, not for failing to adhere to the modified Stay Order by the High Court. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the High Court's directive regarding the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within eight weeks was distinct from the disposal timeline of the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument regarding the interpretation of the Order dated 3-4-1991, which specified the deposit conditions. The Tribunal clarified that the non-compliance with the Stay Order was not the basis for dismissing the appeal for default of appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Order dated 24-2-1992 and restored the appeal to its original number, emphasizing that the issue of non-compliance with the Stay Order could be raised by the respondent after the appeal's restoration.
|
