ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE, ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application, filed by the Counsel for the appellants under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, seeks to restore the appeal which was dismissed as per Order dated 20.12.2000 on the ground of non -prosecution.

(2.) SH . Deepak Mahajan, Advocate representing his senior Counsel for the appellants, Sh. Vivek Sood, submits that, on 20.12.2000, he happened to be absent on account of the fact that he had erroneously noted the date of hearing as 28.12.2000 instead of 20.12.2000. He further points out that he joined the legal profession only in July 2000 and, therefore, he was not conversant with the procedure of the Tribunal. He prays for allowing the present application in the interest of justice and restoring the appeal to its original number. Ld. JDR, Sh. K. Panchatcharam has left the matter to the decision of the bench in facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) IT is noted that the present application is under the proviso to Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. But, as rightly pointed out by 1d. Advocate Sh. K.K. Anand by way of assisting the bench, Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is a dead letter with no force of law after the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1998(100) ELT 335 (Guj.)], wherein the above rule was struck down as ultra vires Section 35C (1) of the Central Excise Act and Section 129B (1) of the Customs Act. The present application filed under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is, ipso facto, not maintainable. Nevertheless, any rejection of the present application on that ground grave nature. That should not happen, particularly when the dismissal of the appeal on 20.12.2000 was not due to their fault. The dismissal was on the ground of non -prosecution of the case. There was a Counsel on record to prosecute the case for the party. That Counsel happened to be absent for some reason or the other. The present application brings up a reason. I have considered the same. Therefore, for the ends of justice, having regard to the facts and circumstances already noted, I invoke the provisions of Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and allow this application. The appeal is restored to its original number and posted for regular hearing to 11.5.2001.