9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the respondents. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common dispute, therefore, are being decided together by this common order. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the orders of the tribunal dated 18.6.2018 by which the applications for recall of the order dated 23.10.2017 have been rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not require any rectification and there is no power of review vested in the Tribunal. The moot question which raised for consideration is whether the Tribunal is divested of the power to recall an order passed by it in violation of the principles of natural justice, if so established. The power of rectification and the power of substantive review are two different things distinct from proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal on merits after hearing the appellants. It further provides that where the appeal has been disposed of in the above manner and the respondents appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance, the Tribunal shall set aside the order and restore the appeal for hearing on merits. The aforesaid Rule 25 is reproduced herein below :- "25. Hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it is satisfied that the respondent has failed to appear before it for sufficient cause, at the time of hearing and to restore the appeal. Thus, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no authority of law to consider the application of the assessee for recall of an order by which the appeal was decided exparte. In view of the above, the Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
