2010 (9) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Tribunal has not simply disposed the appeals unmindfully - Tribunal has expressed its anxiety when the appellant was absent while disposing the matter - the Tribunal was conscious that if the appellant does not get opportunity of hearing it may suffer - But it was a helpless situation when abuse of the process of law came to record - Hence failure of the appellant to participate for hearing demonstrates that the appellant is interested to enjoy at the cost of revenue without causing appearance for hearing its appeal - It is not a case to further accommodate the appellant to cause prejudice to the interest of revenue keeping the matter pending by restoration of appeal dismissed - Therefore dismiss the applications.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to appear for hearing and seek adjournment.
2. Disposal of appeal on merits by the Tribunal.
3. Abuse of notificational benefit by the appellant.
4. Benefit of waiver of pre-deposit enjoyed by the appellant.
5. Dismissal of applications due to appellant's failure to participate in the hearing.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant's failure to appear for the hearing and seek adjournment. The appellant's counsel sought an adjournment as the main counsel had not received notice in the case. However, the Tribunal noted that the main counsel did not have a Vakalatnama on record. Despite the appellant's previous appearance through a manager, the Tribunal found no valid reason to grant an adjournment on the current date due to the absence of the main counsel.

2. The Tribunal examined the appeal's disposal on merits, emphasizing that the order passed on 30th March 2010 was not merely for statistical purposes but reflected a thorough consideration of the case. The Tribunal, with the assistance of the Revenue, reviewed all material facts and evidence, highlighting the abuse of notificational benefit by the appellant, leading to a loss for the Revenue. The Tribunal demonstrated a clear application of mind in addressing the matter in controversy.

3. Regarding the abuse of notificational benefit by the appellant, the Tribunal noted the appellant's absence during the disposal of the appeal on 30th March 2010. Despite expressing concern for the appellant's opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's failure to participate and the helpless situation when the abuse of the legal process was evident. This issue was detailed in para 3 of the order, showcasing the Tribunal's awareness of the potential consequences for the appellant.

4. The judgment highlighted the appellant's benefit from the waiver of pre-deposit since 2005, indicating a history of enjoying this privilege. However, the appellant's failure to actively participate in the hearing raised concerns about the appellant's intentions to benefit at the expense of the Revenue without presenting its case adequately. The Tribunal noted that after five years of enjoying this benefit, there was no justification to further accommodate the appellant, leading to the dismissal of both applications.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the applications due to the appellant's consistent failure to participate in the hearing process, despite enjoying benefits such as waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment emphasized the importance of active engagement in the legal proceedings and the consequences of abusing notificational benefits, leading to a decision in favor of the Revenue's interests and the proper disposal of the appeal.