Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 730 - CESTAT, BANGALORENon-availability of their advocate for hearing on 25th May, 2010 - it is undisputed fact that it was to the knowledge of the respondents, though it might have been subsequently acquired, that when the matter came up for hearing on 25th May, 2010, the Tribunal was not apprised of any such letter having been sent by the respondents - It is not known as to why the same was not disclosed in the application and why the respondents had to wait till the date of today’s hearing to contend that the proof thereof could be verified from the inward register by verifying whether the same was entered at Serial No. 186 on 24th May, 2010 or not - Letter discloses that the respondents were fully aware that ROA Application No. 04 of 2009 was not disposed of even on 23rd October, 2009 and the hearing in that regard was fixed on 26th October, 2009 and, therefore, had sought adjournment of the same - learned advocate for the respondents has also submitted that on merits the respondents cannot dispute the correctness of the order dated 25th May, 2010 Regarding bar limitation - It is settled law that when a party files an application for recall of an final order, it is not only necessary for the party to justify the absence of the party on the day when the matter had proceeded ex parte, but should also disclose the grounds of challenge which could be said to have been omitted from consideration or not considered by the Tribunal which could have influenced its decision - As already pointed out above, while dealing with this aspect there is clear observation in the order dated 25th May, 2010 as to why we have considered the issue of limitation and it does not require further deliberation in this order - Application stands disposed of
|