2012 (10) TMI 265 - HC - Central Excise

Recall of the order alleged that appellant was not afforded an opportunity to argue the appeal inasmuch as the matter was heard on the question of stay Held that - Petitioner permitted to file an application for review/recall/modification that they were not granted any opportunity to put forth contentions for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal on merits. This is an aspect which has to be gone into by the Tribunal - writ petition is accordingly disposed of

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for lack of opportunity to argue appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
- The petitioner challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for not being given an opportunity to argue the appeal. The matter was heard on the question of stay, and the appellant claimed they were not afforded a chance to present their case for adjudication on merits.

2. Grant of Liberty for Review/Recall/Modification:
- The High Court, after hearing both parties, allowed the petitioner to file an application for review, recall, or modification of the order dated 17-6-2011. The court emphasized that the Tribunal should objectively consider the grounds presented by the petitioner in the application.

3. Disposal of Writ Petition:
- The High Court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any costs. It was made clear that granting liberty for review did not imply any assessment of the merits of the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to file the application for review within two weeks from the date of the judgment.

4. Final Order and Procedure:
- The judgment concluded with an order for dasti under the signature of the Court Master, ensuring that the necessary documents are provided promptly. The court's decision to grant liberty for review underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the right to present arguments before the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the court's decision to grant liberty for review, and the procedural aspects related to the disposal of the writ petition.