- (1.) This writ petition challenges the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short "CEGAT") dated 15-2-2001 by which Tribunal has rejected restoration application of the petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed appeal against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur dated 17-2-1998 before CEGAT along with application under Section 35F of the Act for waiving the condition of pre-deposit and stay of the demand. It appears that on 30-3-2000 Bench of the CEGAT heard the application under Section 35F of the Act and delivered the judgment in the open court. CEGAT has allowed the application and dispensed with the requirement of pre-deposit of balance of duty and its recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. Perusal of the order sheet, which has been filed along with counter affidavit as annexure No. CA-1 also shows that in the order sheet there is mention "interim stay granted. Listed for PH on 22-6-2000. No notice. Sd/- 30.3." On 22-6-2000 CEGAT dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Petitioner filed restoration application stating therein that the notice for hearing for 22-6-2000 was not received by it and the same was not mentioned in the order dated 30-3-2000 and, therefore, they could not present on 22-6-2000, the date fixed for hearing. CEGAT rejected the restoration application for the following reasons : "On perusal of the record, it is however, observed that this appeal was called for the purpose of hearing the stay petition filed by the appellants on 30-3-2000. On that date, the appellants were represented by their counsel Shri Amit Awasthi, Adv. The appellants were granted the stay in the open court and the case was listed for regular hearing on 22-6-2000 in the presence of learned counsel for the appellants. It is also recorded that learned counsel had taken note of the next date of hearing and therefore, no notice could be sent. In the face of these facts, the appellants cannot stay that they did not receive any notice for hearing for 22-6-2000."
(3.) Heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Counsel for the respondent.;