ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (Technical)
1. The applicant M/s Bhor Industries have moved the instant Miscellaneous Application against the order of this Tribunal No.CII/1357/WZB/2003 dated 12.6.03, whereunder their appeal E.No.3186/98-Mum was dismissed. The application prays that the said order dated 12.6.03 was passed ex-parte, without hearing the appellants. It is claimed by the appellant’s that they came to know about the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal, only after they received a communication from the bank, enclosing a letter dated 9.12.2003 from the Assistant Commissioner asking the bank to encash the Bank Guarantee. The appellants are stating that they did not receive the notice of hearing from the Tribunal’s registry on account of change of address.
2. When the said Miscellaneous Application was heard on 25.2.2004, the registry was directed to furnish a copy of the impugned order dated 12.6.2003. The registry supplied the copy and noted that the said order was despatched to the appellants on 24.6.03. The applicants had also moved a miscellaneous application E/MA (Ors) 2/04-Mum., therein it has been mentioned that on going through the Tribunal’s order, certain default s on the part of the appellants in appearing before the adjudicating authority is mentioned, which is also challenged for seeking restoration of appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. On going through the records it is seen that the notice for hearing was sent to appellant’s Borivali address, and so was the order of the Tribunal dated 12.6.2003. By that time the appellant had shifted to the new location of which the registry had no intimation. It appears that the appellants had issued a single communication dated 20.9.2002 addressed to the Registry communicating new address for correspondence, covering 15 appeals including the instant appeal. However this communication was not on the record of the registry.
5. In the background of the events enumerated above it is obvious that the appellants alone can not be blamed for their failure to be present during the hearing held on 26.5.2003. Therefore I hold that the Tribunal’s order dated 12.6.03, being an ex-parte order is required to be recalled and the appeal has to be restored to its original position.
6. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal dated 12.6.03 is recalled and the appeal of the appellants is restored to its original position. The registry is directed to list the appeal for regular hearing expeditiously. The miscellaneous applications are allowed, as directed above.
(Dictated in Court)