TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter as having been listed on that date. As such, they, by entertaining a reasonable belief that the said matter is not listed, did not cause appearance before the Bench. We have seen the said cause list annexed with the application and find the applicant’s plea to be correct. As such, we are of the view that the said miscellaneous order is also required to be called. - application allowed - order recalled. - Appeal No. 3823-3824 of 2012 - Misc. Order No. 59968-59973/2013 - Dated:- 29-11-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : S/Shri Aditya Kumar and Pankaj Bhatia, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Archana Wadhwa :- After heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us date of hearing i.e. on 06/05/2013, his junior who was present in the court wrongly noted the date as 13/06/2013. 3. As nobody appeared on 13/05/2013, the stay petitions were decided ex-partee in the absence of the applicants and the subsequent applications for recalling of the stay order were also rejected vide order dated 25th October 2013 on the ground that nobody appeared even on the said day and the appellants are following dilating tactics to deprive the revenue from collecting its dues. 4. As regards the first order passed on 13/05/13, we note that the last date of hearing was not 13/01/2013, as noted in the stay order. The note sheets revealed that from 03/01/2013, the matter was adjourned to 29/01/13 and on 29/01/13, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 06/0513 to 13/05/13, being a very short adjournment during which proper notices cannot be sent to the appellants, we agree with the contention of the learned Advocate that the said ex-partee order passed on 13/05/13, without taking into account the arguments, which might have been advanced by the appellants, needs to be recalled, in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.). 6. As regards, the objection of the learned DR that the miscellaneous application for recalling of the said stay order already stands rejected vide subsequent miscellaneous application No. 59683-59688/2013 dated 25/10/13, we find that the appellants have specifically con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
