TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular party. The finding of the Tribunal relating to abuse of process of law, warrants leniency and the matter deserves to be relooked into for which course the learned senior counsel for the appellant is fully agreeable and more so, accepts that a specific date be fixed for hearing. Therefore, accepting the plea of the appellant, this Court, while setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, remands the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the application filed for waiver of pre-deposit to be heard on 18.3.2015, which date, it is stated, that the appeal has been posted for reporting compliance of the order of the Tribunal. It is made clear that the appellant/assessee will not seek further adjournment and the discretio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; ii) Khurana Engineering Ltd. - Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2011 (21) STR 115 (Tri. - Ahmd); and iii) Nitesh Estates Ltd. - Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (2012 (26) STR 587 (Tr. - Bang). 5. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that due to the callous approach of the appellant in the adjudication proceedings, the appellant suffered the order. Nevertheless, the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit, which petition came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 31.12.14. The primary reason that weighed with the Tribunal to order pre-deposit is that the appellant was non-cooperative and due to the ineffective participation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a position to attend the hearing fixed on 31.12.2014. Hence kindly adjourn the hearing fixed on 31.12.2014 by 4 weeks. Inconvenience caused regretted. 7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that though the counsel submitted the above letter pleading that he was on pilgrimage and, therefore, requested sometime, the Tribunal held that the plea for adjournment amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, did not deserve leniency. The Tribunal also further observed that when one adjournment has been granted, there is no necessity to grant second adjournment. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to consider the case on merits and ordered pre-deposit. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of adjournment, there is no representation for the appellant and that the appellant is adopting dilatory tactics in not appearing, which is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, no leniency should be given. However, it appears from the records that initially when the matter was to be called on 10.9.14, which is the first date of hearing, the appellant himself had submitted a request letter on 8.9.14 requesting for adjournment. Though such is the factual position, the said fact does not find a place in the order of the Tribunal. However, without any mention about the said letter, the matter was adjourned to 31.12.14. However, prior to the date of hearing, i.e., 31.12.14, the counsel engaged by the appellant had submitted a letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
