1999 (12) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Recall and set aside a judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2364/90-A.
- Grant an opportunity of being heard before disposing of the appeal on merits.
- Non-service of notice to the respondent in the appeal.
- Approach to the Supreme Court challenging the Final Order of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the request to recall and set aside the judgment and order dated 29-8-97 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2364/90-A and to grant an opportunity of being heard before disposing of the appeal on merits. The petitioner argued that the appeal was disposed of without issuing notice of hearing to them or their Advocate. The Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing was dispatched to the respondent on 6-8-97, and despite this, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent on 29-8-97. Consequently, the Tribunal passed the Final Order No. 1666/97 on that day. The petitioner's argument was based on the lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner did not take any action upon receiving the copy of the order to approach the Tribunal for a variation. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the Tribunal's order, which was later withdrawn. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was indifferent in approaching the Tribunal and did not have sufficient grounds to entertain the application, leading to its dismissal.

2. Another issue raised was the non-service of notice to the respondent in the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the notice of hearing was sent to the party through post on 6-8-97, and the appeal was disposed of on 29-8-97. Despite receiving the copy of the order, the petitioner did not take any action to address the issue of non-service of notice promptly. The Tribunal emphasized that the petitioner had sufficient opportunities to rectify the situation but failed to do so, even after being informed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise about the follow-up action. The petitioner's delay in approaching the Tribunal after withdrawing the appeal from the Supreme Court was considered unreasonable, leading to the dismissal of the application due to the lack of grounds for condoning the delays.

3. Additionally, the issue of the approach to the Supreme Court challenging the Final Order of the Tribunal was discussed. The petitioner, after receiving a copy of the order, approached the Supreme Court invoking the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner with the liberty to move the same before the Tribunal for appropriate relief. Despite this, the petitioner took more than five weeks to approach the Tribunal after withdrawing the appeal. The Tribunal found the petitioner's actions to be lacking in diligence and reasoned that the delays in approaching the appropriate authorities did not warrant the application to be entertained. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application based on the petitioner's failure to act promptly and diligently in addressing the issues raised regarding the Final Order of the Tribunal.