TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner. M. S. Guglani for the Respondent. ORDER D. K. Jain CJ. - By this writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 25-9-2003 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('the Tribunal') in Appeal No.E/COD/122/03-NB(S) STAY/1060/03- NB(S) with E/Appeal No. 1658/03-NB(S). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 105 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Since the controversy raised in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed since February, 1999, but still its representatives were pursuing the matter with the lower authorities even in the year 2001 and therefore, Commissioner's order should have been brought to their notice. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has not only failed to consider the cause for delay in filing the appeal in its correct perspective, it has also gone wrong in not acceding to the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner on account of his personal difficulty, particularly when it was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that even the Director of the petitioner was sick. Learned counsel has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the principle of natural justice, commonly known as the audi alterarn partern rule. None should be condemned unheard. We do not propose to dwell into this issue in further detail as we feel that having regard to the facts on hand and in order to cut-short the life of litigation, the interest of justice would be subserved if the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case. 7. Accordingly, we set aside orders dated 25-9-2003 (Annexure P.8 and 8-8-2002 (Annexure P.5) and remit the case back to the Commissioner for deciding Appeal No. 307/CE/CHD-1/02 on merits, subject to the petitioner's complying with the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
