TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998. It was declared therein that an application for restoration of his appeal is pending before the Tribunal at Chennai. No action was taken. Subsequently, the CEGAT, Chennai, in MC No. 239/99 restored the appeal to its original file. The respondent in terms of Annexure-D, letter dated 11-1-1999 wanted the petitioner to produce documentary evidence with regard to restoration of appeal by the CEG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex parte order at the time of declaration made by him. Subsequently, the appeal was restored to its original file. After recalling the same the Commissioner has now rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that no dispute was pending in appeal before the CEGAT, Chennai, on the date of filing the declaration and that the restoration of appeals was ordered by CEGAT only subsequently. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of its filing no reference application was pending. However, it is also equally true that the Tribunal by its subsequent order dated May 27, 1999, has accepted the contention of the petitioner that it had no notice about the date of hearing in the reference application on January 29, 1999, and as such the ex parte order passed on that date was illegal and needed to be recalled. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter to the file of the respondent with the observation that the declaration filed by the petitioner under the KVS Scheme on January 29, 1999, may be considered in the light of the fact that the reference application filed by the petitioner was pending before the tribunal on that date. The respondent shall now process the declaration afresh and dispose of it in accordance with law." The Madh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
