ORDER
T.V. Sairam, Member (T)
1. Having heard both sides and after perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondents in this case had shifted to a new address (No. 2, Ist Main Road, G.K. Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 116. From the records it is also clear that the intimation letters sent to them on two occasions have returned by the postal authority with the remarks “Left”. Ld. JDR relies upon the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Sunil Ghosh in which the Hon’ble High Court had held that review and rectification cannot be treated at par and that Section 129B in respect of Customs Act, 1962 does not empower the Appellate Tribunal to undertake the review.
2. On the other hand, ld. Consultant for the respondents relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE for the proposition that appeal is restorable when there was sufficient cause for absence of the party and that to meets the ends of justice required when a party is unable to appear for no fault of its own.
3. It is found that in this matter the respondents had shifted their premises and hence the correspondence addressed to them had to come back the Tribunal. As no proper service was made, I am of the view of that sufficient cause has been shown by the respondents for its absence during the proceedings which was held on 20.1.2006. In view of the fact that the respondents who are also applicants of the ROM have established that the communication about the proceedings have not reached them, the Final Order No. 62/2006 dated 20.1.2006 in Appeal No. S/14/2003 passed by this Tribunal is hereby recalled. In view of this, the application is allowed and the Final Order No. 62/03 dt.20.1.2006 recalled. At this junction the Revenue who has been the appellant seeks time for producing the contract documents of the respondents. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for 21.1.2008 at 10.30 AM.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)