TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Rajesh Kumar T.R., CA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent ORDER The applicant/respondent has filed this miscellaneous application to recall Final Order No. 26942/2013 dated 08.11.2013 passed in Appeal No. ST/CO/2/2012 filed by M/s. Rajesh Tours Travels (respondents). The applicant has further stated in the application that the CESTAT vide Final Order No. 26942/2013 dated 08.11.2013 had dismissed the appellant's appeal (Revenue's appeal) as the amount involved was less than ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Ranka Ranka r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order, respondent was not present rather the respondent sought adjournment by filing an application before the Tribunal which is on record. The application is dated 08.11.2013 requesting the Tribunal to adjourn the case as the counsel for the appellant was unable to appear on that day and the Tribunal while passing the order has also observed that None is present for the respondent. However, since the issue involved could be in favour of the respondent, on going through the record, I consider that the appeal can be decided even in their absence and accordingly it is taken up for final decision. Learned consultant submitted that from the language of the order it appeared that the Tribunal is deciding the matter in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application. In support of his submission, he also relied upon the following decisions: a) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lindt Exports 2012 (278) E.L.T. 587 (Del.) b) Jai Bharat Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (305) E.L.T. 240 (Guj.) c) Vibha Fluid Systems Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 (287) E.L.T. 29 (Guj.) d) Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah Vs. Union of India 2012 (282) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) e) Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. A.S.C.U. Ltd, 2003 (151) EL.T. 481 (S.C) f) Commissioner of C.Ex, Bangalore-III Vs. McDowell Co. Ltd. 2005 (186) E.L.T. 145 (Kar) 5. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and the perusal of the judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 was passed, the Tribunal held that the issue could be decided in favour of the respondent on going through the records without the presence of the respondent but in fact by disposal of the cross objection, a part of the impugned order which was against the applicant has been upheld. Further the cross objection filed by the applicant was not before the Tribunal on that day as the same was not even listed. Therefore, in my view the disposal of the cross objection simply with the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue is not in accordance with the law and the decisions cited by the consultant. Therefore, I allow the application to the extent of restoring the cross objection of the applicant to be decided of merit subject to the cost of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
