Full Judgment
makes a mention that though restoration of the Stay Petition request, according to the receipt given to him, was supposed to be listed for 14-8-1998. However, on seeing the cause list, he submits that the case does not appear to have been listed. He submits that in the meantime his three appeals have been dismissed by the Tribunal under the Final Order Nos. E/673-75/98-NB, dated 5-8-1998. He submits that his Stay Petition was listed for hearing on 14-4-1998 which subsequently was declared as a holiday and the cases listed for 14-4-1998 were listed for some other day and in this case they were listed for hearing on 15-5-1998. He submitted that he had not received any intimation regarding the date of hearing fixed for his Stay Petition. He submits that in support of his contention he has filed an Affidavit. Ld.
Counsel submits that since he did not have any intimation, the Stay Petition was dismissed on 15-5-1998 and his clients were directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty. He submits that in this order compliance was supposed to be reported by 5-8-1998. Ld. Counsel submits that in the meantime, he submitted an application in which he was given the date of 14-8-1998 whereas in pursuance of the earlier order, the issue came up before the Tribunal on 5-8-1998 and the Tribunal dismissed the three appeals themselves. He submits that there has been a communication gap as the date already fixed was not changed to 14-8-1998. He prays that in view of this the Stay Petition alongwith the appeal may be restored to its original number.
3. Heard the submissions. On careful consideration, we find that there has been a communication gap after the first hearing was fixed for 14-4-1998 which was subsequently declared as a holiday. In view of the position explained by ld. Counsel, we order restoration of the appeals alongwith the stay petition. Accordingly, they should be restored to their original number. The case for hearing the Stay Petition should be listed for 2-9-1998.