9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal is heard on merits. 2. Appellant is challenging the order passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in dismissing the Miscellaneous petition No. 104/2007 dated 13-3-2007 in Appeal No. C/529/04 and to recall the final order dated 11-11-2005 [2006 (195) E.L.T. 88 (Tribunal)] passed in C/529/2004 and to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final hearing on 5-8-2005. According to the appellant, the appellant was not aware of the hearing date, since the interim order of stay was granted in the absance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the appallant. Since the appellant did not receive any notice of hearing by the Bangalore Bench, it was under the impression that it would have received a notice. However, the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed the miscellaneous petition on the ground that the applicant has not made out a case to recall the order and the assessee was not bothered to prosecute its appeal before the CESTAT on 13th March 2007. This order is called in question in this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. We do not dispute that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal. Even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 as per Annexure-F. Considering the paramount interest of the litigants, we are of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to put-forth his grievance. 5. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal awarding cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the revenue within two weeks. We direct the Tribunal to consider the appeal filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 529/2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
