TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest liability and that interest liability would arise only in the cases where the wrongly taken cenvat credit had also been utilized. It is seen that same view had been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Strategic Engg . (P) Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) . It is also seen that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/ s.Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been followed by this Tribunal in the case [2014 (7) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. According to the respondent, their case is covered by the above mentioned judgements of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Madras High Court as in their case, there was no utilization of the wrongly availed cenvat credit. Since at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atories Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (S.C.) . 2. Shri Abhishek Jaju , ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that prior to the date of hearing and decision i.e. 23.12.2013, this matter had been listed for hearing on 22.11.2013 and since on that date, there was no court, the matter had been adjourned to 23.12.2013, that there was mistake on his part in noting down the date of next hearing from the Court Master's record, and instead of 23.12.2013 , he noted the date as 23.01.2014 , as a result of which, he failed to appear before the court on 23.12.2013 when this matter had been listed for hearing, that the issue involved in this case stands decided in the respondent's favour by the judgements of the Hon'ble Karnata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient cause for absence of the party, as the ends of justice require that when a party is unable to appear for no fault of his own, the ex parte order should be set aside and not to do so on the ground of lack of power would be manifest the justice that even if the respondent's non-representation at the time of hearing on 23.12.2013 is attributable to the mistake of their counsel, the Appellant should not suffer, that the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Ferro and Industries Ltd. reported in 2010 (250) ELT 252 (Tribunal-Delhi) has held that it has been consistent view of the Tribunals and Courts that for any failure on the part of the Advocate, the Assessee should not be made to suffer and that in that case, for this reason only, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, concedes that he had noted down the date for next of hearing from the court master but by mastak he noted down the date as 23.01.2014 instead of the actual date i.e. 23.12.2013 , as a result of which, he did not appear on 23.12.2013. In any case, in this case, the failure to appear at the time of hearing on 23.12.2013 is attributable to the respondent's counsel. The question arises as to whether in these circumstances, the Final Order No.23.12.2013 should be recalled and the appeal should be restored. 6. Though at the time of hearing on 23.12.2013, the matter had been decided ex parte and the Revenue's appeal has been allowed following the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ind -Swift Laboratories (supra), s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
