Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Aarvee Denims And Exports Ltd. And Ors. vs Cce on 7 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(94)ECC225
JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, Member (J)
1. These are two applications, by M/s. Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad, for restoration of their appeals, which have been dismissed for non-prosecution, vide Final Order No. 909-910/2003-NB(B) dated 5.12.2003.
2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the default in appearance on 5.12.2003, had taken place on account of confusion and mis-understanding on the part of the applicants; that the default on their part may be condoned taking lenient view as the applicants are interested in pursuing their appeals; that the previous adjournments, in these appeals, may not be considered as factor against them because the previous adjournments were not on account of applicants' request; that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held in the case of Viral Laminates and Ors. v. CCE, 1998 (100) ELT 335 (Guj.) that the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the appeal in default for appearance.
3. opposing the prayer, Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR, submitted that the appeals were posted for regular hearing after various adjournments, on 4.12.2003; that the request for adjournment was made on behalf of the learned Advocate through his clerk; that the matter was adjourned for 5.12.2003 and the date was duly noted by the clerk of the learned Advocate; that on 5.12.2003, neither anybody was present nor any request for adjournment was received.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The perusal of the order sheets reveal that whenever the appeals were posted for regular hearing since 26.9.2002, the same had been adjourned only on the request of the learned Advocate for the appellants and not for any other reason as mentioned by them in their applications for restoration of these appeals. The order sheet also reveals the fact that on not a single date, the learned Advocate has appeared before the bench even for seeking the adjournment. Further, on the last date of hearing, neither anybody appeared for hearing nor they have cared to request for adjournment. Learned Advocate has agreed to submit an application for adjournment. This all goes to show case of mere the lack of interest kin prosecuting these appeals. We, therefore, find no merit in the applications, which are rejected.