TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Balaji Steel Rerolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs [2014 (11) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT]? - Held that:- Even if the party / parties do not appear at the time of the hearing, Rule 20 of the Rules requires the Tribunal to decide the issue on merits. This is not the requirement while dismissing an appeal for noncompliance with the Rule 11(2) of the CESTAT (Procedural) Rules. Thus, we see no reason to entertain the appeal on the aforesaid two questions of law as proposed by the appellant. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct who did not consider the genuine cause for non prosecution and dismissed an appeal by order dated 27.1.2015? - Held that:- The question as proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India, 2015 (324) E.L.T. 290 (Bom.)? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct who did not consider the genuine cause for non prosecution and dismissed an appeal by order dated 27.1.2015? 3. The impugned order dated 8th March, 2013 of the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 35B of the Act as none appeared in support of the appeal. This after sending three notices of the hearing and the Registry also directing the appellants to file a condonation of delay application along with the prescribed fees. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 8th March, 2013 in terms of Rule 11 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Therefore, in this appeal we are not concerned with the challenge to the order dated 27th January, 2015 of the Tribunal. 6. In the above view, we are concerned only with the order dated 8th March, 2013 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-removal of office objections in filing an appeal and also for not appearing inspite the notices being sent to the appellant. 7. So far as question nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, it is the case of the appellant as appearing from the questions, that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and noncompliance with the objections raised by the Registry without having considered the issue on merits. In support, as mentioned in the questions, decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho was briefed did not appear on the date when the hearing was fixed by the Tribunal. Before us the parties places reliance upon the bill dated 6th June, 2015 issued by the Chartered Accountant in support of his contention that the Chartered Accountant was briefed and he did not appear on the date fixed by the Tribunal for hearing of the appeal. However, the perusal of the above bill indicates that the charges were for filing of condonation of delay application and application for restoration of the dismissed appeal. It does not indicate any charges in bill for preparing the appeal or appearing at the Tribunal for the hearing of the appeal. In these circumstances, question (iii) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
