HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH AT BiLASPUR D.B, HQN^Bi-ttsHRi DHi&ewDRA^iSHRA. 1« HON'BLE SHR! R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ r>'^uliOu€iiT WutPeiiiion,j^o,^72^oi206S M/s Anna&uma Maiieabies Pvt. Ltci. 18, New lndi'st"a! Area, Sarora Rmg Road, Ra'pur (CG) v&rsus i. Union or inaia, Keoresentea oy tne iiecie'tary 01 Government of fnd'a. Min'strv of F'nance. USpaPt.iTlSfsi, Ot ^US'l.OiiiS lutSiiliSi t-XCiS^, i''ti£V'ii U3iiil. i ne wusiorris, i-xciss & i>6r\/ice i ax Appeiiaie Triigyngj ji,jf<rt^grn gench, West Bteck No.2. R.K. ^ii ^x; 1 i^ l -s^\'if ^/ ^U li -^t" i ^ w? s^^>/^ The CoiTimiSsionsr, Customs & Csntrai Excise, Centrai Excfee B'-!'!rtina, Dhamtari Road. Tikraoara. •^*i ~^ ^a/ lkff»? JT F (V^^Wiit^ Mr. Vivek verma, counsei for the petltioners. Mr. Bh'shma K'naer. counse! forthe ressondents. UKAi- UHui-ri (22"" January, 2010) per_ Dhwendra jWisrti'a, j <at' ~v By this peution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the-order aated 20.S.2005 (Annexure P/S), whereby Customs Excise & Service Tax Appeiiate Tribunai, New Deihi (in short "Tribunal") has rejected the misceiianeous appiication, whersin it was contencied that the appiicani/petitioner had fiied a restoration appiication on 26''" Fabruary, 1997 through speed post for restoration of frie appsai, which was dismissed viae final orderdated !8 December, 1996. 2. The above appiication has been rejected with an obsereation that irom tiie report of the Registiy, it is found that no such appiication ir'i Febi'uaiy, iS37 has been received in ihe office for restoraaon ofih®appeat. \ 3; Learnea counsel ror me oeuuoner suurifiiis mai u'te appeai was dismissed on 18"' Oecember. 1936 ror want of prosecution. tfvhen (ne petiuoner ieai'nt uboui. ciisniissai ot liis appfiai, ne appii6u tor rssioranon Bitouyii soeeu yosi. Thereafter, he adciressed severai teiegrams by way of reiriinder. The petitionet aiso deiivered reminder in the office of responderit »|D 2- i'MO.2 in the year 1998. The petitioner was oraiiy asked by respondent No.2 to suumit proor of filing of any appeai. in compfiance thereof, the petiuoner had furnished necessaiy information in the 'y'eai' 2005 vide Annexui'e P/7, which was fluiy seived upon tiie responaenis v'iue serv'ice report o'f Annexui'e i-'/o. nowever, ine i riDunai oisrriisseu ine appiicauon roi" r6si0j'aiion 'viue impuyrisu oiaei' or Annexuis r'/y on ine yrouriu (nai no appiicaiion I'oi' f6Sioi"aiiori, ciaiiriea 10 oe Tiiea in ine yeaf' iaai oy' uie oeutionsi', is avaiiauie in irie risgi&iry. ne ruduCf suorniiLS insii in y'iose Cit'cun"iStc(f'tC6a, eriis peui.iofi jTi^v os aisposea or wiiri a aifecu&n 10 I'csponueni I'io.^.i i fiuunai 10 oeciuo ins appiicauon ror reStOiciuon on inei'ii.s. 4. \jf\ tne ouitef" n^no, ouu cinisnm^ r\iuQ^f, i6am6u coufit^d i'0i" ine jTOspond'6uis, subiTiiis ihcit tfie peutiOii'&t' dld uOt produce any ovidsnce, elther befwe the Tribunai or this Court, fhat ths appiication for restoration, all&gediy dispaiched through speed post, was, in lact, received in the Registry of the Tribunai and in these circumstances, the question of further consideration of the non-exisieni restorauon appiicauon by the Tribunai, that too, after rnore than 14 years of disrnissai of the appeal, does.not arise. 5. Having heard iearned counsei for the parties, havins gone thi-ough the a'ocurnents fiied by the peiitioner, and considering the observations of the Tribunai that no appiication foi' restoi'auon ailegediy filed in Februaiy, 1997 is avaiiable in the Reflistry, we are of the opinion that no direciion, as pfayed IQI' by the petiuoner, can be issued to ihe respondent/Tribunai and that too, after a lapse of more than 14 years of dismissai of the appeal. The petition is sans inenis, tiie sarne is lia&ie to 'oe dismissea and is fiereBy ciismisseci. Sd/- i . ! • . Dhirendra Mishara 1 Sd/- Judge L R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^