Damodar Nayak Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) restored an appeal after two years, observing that the appellant was not served with a notice of the final hearing due to an incorrect address provided by the previous advocate. The tribunal noted that the earlier counsel was untraceable, leading to a lack of communication with the appellant.
Summary of Judgement
Background:
1. Appellant had filed Appeal dated 04.08.2012 with the Honorable CESTAT, Mumbai against The O/O No. CAO/29/2012/CAC/CC/BKS dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs which has imposed penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- under sect 112(b) of the customs act 1962, as co-notice to principle violator of the terms of DEEC schemes by diverting imported goods to local market without fulfilment of export obligations.
2. Appellant being a senior citizen and a lay men had appointed one advocate to look into the matter as appellant was not aware of the court proceeding and the business of appellant was already closed at the time of filing of appeal.
3. At the time of filing the appeal the advocate on record mistakenly put his own office address instead of appellant.
4. matter had been listed many times and stay application was allowed.
5. From 2018 advocate on record was not traceable as he had moved to Delhi.
6. on 09.11.2021 CESTAT issues notice to appellant which was unclaimed hence on 17.01.2022 CESTAT dismissed the appeal for default and non-prosecution under Rule, 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
7. The Applicant came to know about the order, only after receiving the recovery notice, from the department, informing that the matter was dismissed on 03.02.2023.
8. The appellant filed restoration application (Customs ROA Application No. 85266 of 2023) on 03/03/2023
Appellant’s stand:
