Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1336 - HC - Central ExciseDismissal of stay application - Non apperance of counsel - whether the CESTAT was justified in dismissing the application for stay for nonappearance of the appellant or his counsel - Held that:- mere absence of an appellant or his counsel on one date, “may” not be sufficient to dismiss an application/appeal for default. Courts/Tribunals are constituted to decide disputes on merits and, therefore, dismissing an application/appeal on the first occasion of non-representation, in our considered opinion, may not be the right course to adopt. A perusal of the facts reveals that counsel for the appellant addressed a letter, Annexure A-7, to the CESTAT, praying for an adjournment as he had been advised rest on account of severe cervical pain. It appears that the letter was not placed before the CESTAT, for otherwise we are sure that the CESTAT would have adjourned hearing of the application - matter restored to CESTAT - Pre deposit demanded - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|