2011 (5) TMI 1053 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against orders of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed due to ex parte decision.
- Request for adjournment due to counsel's surgery.
- Tribunal's failure to note the reason for counsel's absence.
- Appellant's arguable case and prejudice due to non-appearance.
- Setting aside the impugned order and directing parties to appear before Tribunal.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to appeals filed against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that were dismissed due to an ex parte decision. The appellant's counsel had undergone surgery, and an application for adjournment was made a day before the hearing, requesting the matter to be fixed after a specific date. The Tribunal failed to note the reason for the absence of the counsel, leading to the ex parte decision. The High Court acknowledged that the appellant had an arguable case and that the non-appearance of the counsel before CESTAT was a serious prejudice to their interests. The Court set aside the impugned order based on the sufficient cause shown for non-appearance, emphasizing that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after giving a hearing to both parties.

The High Court allowed the appeals on the grounds of the appellant's arguable case and the prejudice caused by the non-appearance of the counsel. No costs were awarded, and the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date for further proceedings. This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring fair representation and the right to be heard in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of reasons for non-appearance to prevent prejudice to parties involved.