JUDGMENT
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This application is by the appellant’s advocate. It is for recalling Final Order No. 347/2003 NB(C) dated 21.5.2003 passed in the captioned appeal. When the appeal had arisen to be heard by the Bench on 21.5.2003, there was no one to represent the appellants, though a letter dated 24.3.2003 of their advocate seeking adjournment of the hearing was noticed. However, as the bench, on examination of the records, found the case to be one which was fit for instant disposal, the appeal was finally disposed of on its merits as per the above Final Order.
2. When the Misc. application arose for consideration by the Bench, again, there was no representation for the appellants. However, ‘written submissions’ dated 8.9.2003 of the advocate were there on record and the same suggested that the Misc. application be disposed of without hearing him. The ‘written submissions’ were also accompanied by copies of the judgments which were relied on in the Misc. application.
3. We have considered the Misc. application and the case law cited therein. We have also heard the JDR.
4. The above Final Order, though ex parte, disposed of the appeal on its merits. The present application seeks to recall that order on the strength of the following decisions:
1. 2999 (105) ELT 423 (T) Paharpur Plastics v. CCE, Meerut
2. 2000 (122) ELT 147 (T) Gujarat Steel Tubes v. CCE, Ahmedabad
3. 2002 (230) ELT 569 (T) Vishwanath Prasad Santosh Kumar v. CCE, Allahabad.
4. 2000 (8) SCC 532 (SC) State Bank of India v. Chandra Govind Ji
5. 2002 (141) ELT 709 (T) Digvijay Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur
5. We have perused the cited decisions and have found that, in each of the cases mentioned at 1 to 3 above, restoration of appeal/application was allowed by recalling order of dismissal of appeal/application. The order so recalled in each case was one by which appeal/application had been dismissed for default or non-prosecution and not one passed on merits. Insofar as the cases of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govind Ji (supra) and Digvijay Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) are concerned, what has been laid down in those cases is that any request for adjournment of hearing is not to be turned down on the mere ground that adjournments had been granted on earlier occasions. This ratio is not applicable to the instant case inasmuch as this is not a case of denial of adjournment on the said ground. Thus, none of the decisions cited by the advocate is helpful to the applicants.
6. Apart from the above, we also note that this application for recalling the Final Order in the appeal has been filed by the Advocate and is not even accompanied by any affidavit of the party.
7. In the result, the Misc. application is rejected.