Goindwal Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Jul-10-1995 |
| (1996)(83)ELT540TriDel |
| Goindwal Steels Ltd. |
| Collector of Central Excise |
1. this application seeks restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under rule 20 of the cegat (procedure) rules, 1982 vide final order no. a/138/95-nrb, dated 6-3-1995.2. arguing for the appellants, the ld. advocate, submitted that unfortunately in this case the ld. proxy advocate failed to communicate in time the date fixed for hearing and since no notice was issued she failed to appear on the date fixed. in view of this the ld. advocate prays that the appeal be restored since there has been a genuine bona fide error.3. the ld. d.r. submits that in the circumstances explained, the appellants should not be made to suffer for the fault, however, inadvertent, of the ld. proxy advocate and therefore does not oppose the prayer.4. considered. it was expected that the ld. proxy advocate would have conveyed the date fixed for hearing to the ld. advocate in time.considering, however, that the appellants should not suffer because of the error committed in conveying the date of hearing, i agree to the restoration. the appeal is therefore restored. it be listed now on 14th july, 1995 as requested. no notice.
1. This Application seeks restoration of Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 vide Final Order No. A/138/95-NRB, dated 6-3-1995.
2. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate, submitted that unfortunately in this case the Ld. Proxy Advocate failed to communicate in time the date fixed for hearing and since no notice was issued she failed to appear on the date fixed. In view of this the Ld. Advocate prays that the appeal be restored since there has been a genuine bona fide error.
3. The Ld. D.R. submits that in the circumstances explained, the appellants should not be made to suffer for the fault, however, inadvertent, of the Ld. Proxy Advocate and therefore does not oppose the prayer.
4. Considered. It was expected that the Ld. Proxy Advocate would have conveyed the date fixed for hearing to the Ld. Advocate in time.
Considering, however, that the appellants should not suffer because of the error committed in conveying the date of hearing, I agree to the restoration. The appeal is therefore restored. It be listed now on 14th July, 1995 as requested. No notice.