1998 (9) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal to its original number after an ex parte order.
2. Appellant's argument of non-appearance due to the fault of the Advocate.
3. Comparison with the judgment of Rafiq & Another v. Munshilal and Another.
4. Examination of the letter dated 20-6-1998 and its impact on the case.
5. Consideration of the Apex Court judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE regarding ex parte dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:

1. The application sought the restoration of the appeal to its original number after a Final Order was passed by the Tribunal on 25-6-1998, despite the absence of the appellant or their Advocate during the hearing. The appellant's Advocate had withdrawn, and the new Advocate submitted a vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was ex parte as no arguments were presented on their behalf. They contended that the former Advocate was at fault for not appearing on the scheduled date, leading to the appeal's dismissal. Citing the judgment of Rafiq & Another v. Munshilal and Another, the appellant emphasized that they should not suffer due to the Advocate's default.

3. In response, the JDR highlighted a letter dated 20-6-1998 from the appellant's Advocate indicating that the party was aware of the hearing date but failed to provide the necessary papers. The JDR argued that based on these circumstances, the appellant could not claim innocence as per the precedent cited.

4. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, sided with the JDR, dismissing the application. It was noted that the Tribunal's judgment was based on the merits of the case rather than a default, distinguishing it from the case cited by the appellant. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the appellant's absence and upheld the decision to dismiss the application.

5. The appellant's reliance on the judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE was also addressed, with the Tribunal concluding that this case did not support the appellant's position. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate a valid reason for not being aware of the hearing date, the application was dismissed based on the lack of sufficient cause for their absence.