TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.04.2017, it is stated that none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Since the matter was old one, CESTAT had taken it for final decision on merits. While disposing the Misc. Application, the CESTAT has noted the reason for non appearance of the appellants as change of address and not accepted the same on the ground that appellant had not informed to the Registry and accordingly dismissed the application. It is also not disputed that the appeal was filed in the year 2003, but it came up for hearing for the first time in 2017. The appeal had remained on the file of CESTAT for 14 years and disposed of at the first hearing itself. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled for a hearing on merits. Further reckoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest and consequential penalty imposed on the appellants; and (4) Pass any such Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Appellants have raised following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the impugned Misc. Order of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is correct and legally sustainable in rejecting the Misc. Application on the ground of not amending the cause title without considering the fact of service of notice and also the merits of the case? (b) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned Misc. Order of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is correct and legally sustainable especially when the appeal itself were taken up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly when the brand names namely, 'NUCOR WLED' and 'KEMTRODE' were registered with the Trademark Authority? (h) Whether the impugned ex-parte final order of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding penalty without any findings in the impugned order? 4. The respondent has filed the objections to the application for condonation of delay. 5. Shri Raghavendra Hanjer, submits that the appeal before CESTAT (Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) was filed in the year 2003 and it came up for the first time on 26.04.2017. There was no representation on 1 behalf of the appellants before CESTAT on that date, and the CESTAT has disposed of the matter on merits. The appellants filed Misc. Applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|