2009 (4) TMI 466 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of Appeal - stating that the Authorities below have committed error in deciding the matter - Appeal was dismissed earlier - Appellant has specifically stated that they do not wish to appear in person for hearing - Held that - Appellant is directed to appear before this Court - Registry shall list the matter accordingly -. General Manager, (Excise) is also hereby issued summon for the communication he has made expressing no intention to appear - He shall also appear in person before Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal and subsequent application for restoration.
2. Appellant's behavior and abuse of the legal process.
3. Duty of the appellant to appear before the court.
4. Powers of the Tribunal under Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act 1962.
5. Summons issued to the appellant and directions for appearance.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was dismissed earlier due to a small demand involved. The appellant filed an application for restoration, claiming that errors were made by the authorities below. The Tribunal registered the application and afforded a hearing opportunity to the appellant. Despite this, the appellant requested disposal of the matter on merit, indicating an abuse of the legal process.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) highlighted the appellant's previous dismissal and the opportunity provided by the Tribunal for a hearing. The appellant's behavior was deemed inappropriate, showing a lack of respect for the legal process. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's conduct, stating that such actions do not merit consideration.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the duty of the appellant to appear before the court and explain the matter in controversy. The appellant's refusal to appear in person was criticized, as it is essential for the Tribunal to understand the case fully. Reference was made to Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act 1962, which grants the Tribunal powers similar to a Civil Court, including enforcing attendance and examining individuals on oath.

4. Despite granting the appellant a fair opportunity to appear, the Tribunal observed a disregard for the process of justice. Summons were issued to the appellant through the Commissioner of the respective jurisdiction, directing them to appear in person and explain their absence. Failure to comply with the summons would result in appropriate action by the Tribunal.

5. The appellant was directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date, with the Registry listing the matter accordingly. Additionally, a representative of the appellant was issued a summons for expressing no intention to appear, which was viewed as disrespectful to the law. Both the appellant and the representative were required to appear before the Tribunal as ordered.