2013 (12) TMI 1387 - AT - Central Excise

Recalling of ex-parte order of Tribunal Held that - The case was posted for hearing on 16-9-2010, it was the fourth occasion and the appellant had already been given adjournment three times previously - The request for further adjournment was denied - No sufficient cause was shown for the absence on 16-9-2010 either in writing or through a properly authorised Counsel Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for recalling of the order and restoration of appeal based on violation of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought to recall the order dated 16-9-2010, contending that it was passed without hearing them, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant referenced the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C.E. to support their argument.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was given multiple opportunities to present their case, as evident from the observation made in the order. The request for adjournment on the fourth occasion was made through a proxy Counsel, who lacked the authority to represent the appellant in this matter. The law stipulates that adjournments can only be granted three times, and if the party fails to present their case within this limit, the appeal can be decided on merits.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that for adjournments, a sufficient cause must be shown, and even with a valid reason, adjournments are limited to three instances. Since the appellant had already been granted three adjournments before the hearing on 16-9-2010, their request for further adjournment was rightfully denied. The absence of a valid cause for adjournment on that date, either in writing or through an authorized Counsel, further weakened the appellant's argument of a violation of natural justice.

4. Referring to the J.K. Synthetics Ltd. case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of demonstrating a sufficient cause for absence to warrant the recall of an ex parte order. In this instance, the appellant failed to provide any reason for their absence on the date of the hearing, despite it being the fourth scheduled appearance. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's application for recalling the order and restoring the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of a violation of natural justice principles was unfounded, given the ample opportunities provided for presenting their case and the absence of a valid cause for adjournment on the relevant date. The application for recalling the order and restoration of appeal was therefore dismissed for lacking merit.