9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Director, Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd, (referred to as the co-noticee) against the CESTAT Final Order No. 55357-55360 /2024 dated 19-03-2024 in respect of Customs Appeal Nos. C/50671/2021 and Customs Appeal Nos. C/50858/2021 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are reproduced for ease of reference. The appellant obtained an Advance Authorization for export of garments under the category of textile general and were entitled to import raw material which was to be used in the manufacture of the export products. Intelligence was received that such fabrics imported under the Advance Authorisation were being diverted by the importer for sale in the open market. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us advocate. iii. New advocate Sh. G.G. Gupta has been appointed on 23.08.2024. Hence, the Ld Counsel has prayed for restoration of appeal. iv. To allow a Fair chance to the appellant to argue the case. 4. Sh. S.K. Rahman, Departmental Authorized Representative has opposed such a restoration of appeal with the following submissions: i. Six hearings have been offered to the appellant but no one has appeared. As per Proviso to Sec 129B (1A) of the Customs Act, 1962, not more than three adjournments are to be allowed. Hence under Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, Hon'ble CESTAT has passed final order. ii. As per para 6.5 of CESTAT Final Order, "Sh. R K Goyal, failed to appear for recording of statement in spite of many summ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel was appointed thereafter nor did the appellant/co-noticee appeared before this Tribunal to plead their case. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that he was appointed on 23.08.2024 to pursue the appeal. In this context, we note that the appellant waited for one full year after the withdrawal of the Vakalatnama of the earlier advocate, to approach and appoint a new advocate. Further, when the Final Order was issued on 19.03.2024 which as per the prevalent practice is also uploaded, we also find no justifiable reason for the appellants to appoint an advocate on 23.08.2024 to pursue the appeal, merely for filing the present Restoration of Appeal (ROA). This clearly evidences that the appellant and the co-noticee have failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, we are unable to accept this submission of the Ld Counsel. We are of the opinion that the appellant/co-noticee have shown extreme tardiness in following up their appeal before this Tribunal, and this conduct does not convince us to accept the submissions of the Ld Counsel. 9. We further note that it is not a case where the appeal has been dismissed for want of presence or prosecution. The CESTAT Final Order No. 55357-55360 /2024 dated 19-03-2024 has been passed on merits after considering all the grounds of appeal and submissions of the appellant in the Appeal Memorandum and by considering the submissions of Revenue. It is not a case where appeal has been dismissed on any technical grounds. In this regard, we note that the Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
