Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 251 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTRestoration of appeal - ex-parte order of tribunal dismissing the appeal - service of notice of hearing - principle of natural justice - whether the order is cryptic & perfunctory order? - Whether demand on the basis of mere entry in balance sheet can be raised? - Held that:- The Tribunal had adjudicated the issue exparte as counsel for the appellant had failed to appear inspite of the fact that an application was filed giving plausible explanation for non-appearance on 30.7.2012. The Tribunal had refused to recall its earlier order dated 30.7.2012 vide which the lis between the parties was decided on merits. The fact that Rule 21 does not expressly state that an order on an appeal heard and disposed of ex-parte can be set aside on sufficient cause for the absence or the respondent being shown does not mean that CEGAT has on power to do so. Rule 41 gives CEGAT wide powers to make such orders or give such directions as might be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or, most importantly, to secure the ends of justice. The records show that the notice had been sent to the respondent but the same had been returned back with the remarks that "there is nobody in the factory" implying that the factory is closed. The endorsement by the postal authority that "there is nobody in the factory" cannot tantamount to the refusal of the appellant nor that can be read as factory is closed as has been read by the Tribunal. The Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application of the appellant. Admittedly, the order was passed without hearing the appellant, hence we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for recall of the order dated 3.2.2011 - matter remitted before the tribunal for fresh decision - decided in favor of assessee.
|