2014 (2) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Recalling of stay order - exparte order - miscellaneous application was also rejected for non appearance - applicants submits that on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 06/05/2013 his junior who was present in the court wrongly noted the date as 13/06/2013 - Held that - the miscellaneous application for recalling of the said stay order already stands rejected vide subsequent miscellaneous application No. 59683-59688/2013 dated 25/10/13 we find that the appellants have specifically contended that though they have received the notice but the internet cause list uploaded by the Registry did not show this matter as having been listed on that date. As such they by entertaining a reasonable belief that the said matter is not listed did not cause appearance before the Bench. We have seen the said cause list annexed with the application and find the applicant s plea to be correct. As such we are of the view that the said miscellaneous order is also required to be called. - application allowed - order recalled.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of stay order passed in absence of applicants.
2. Consideration of adjournment dates and notice issues.
3. Recalling of subsequent miscellaneous application for stay order.
4. Decision on recalling of stay order and miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the recall of a stay order passed in the absence of the applicants. The Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit the demanded amounts within six weeks and report compliance. The applicants filed a miscellaneous application for recalling the stay order, citing absence during the hearing and incorrect dates noted in the order. The Tribunal rejected subsequent applications for recalling, alleging dilatory tactics by the appellants.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of adjournment dates and notice issues. It was noted that the matter was adjourned multiple times, with discrepancies in the dates noted in the orders. The representative of the main appellant claimed that notices were not being sent to the correct address, leading to non-appearance on specific dates. The Tribunal observed that the short adjournment period between certain dates made it unreasonable to expect proper notice delivery.

3. Addressing the objections raised by the authorized representative, the Tribunal considered the rejection of the miscellaneous application for recalling the stay order. The appellants contended that despite receiving notices, the internet cause list did not reflect the matter being listed, leading to their non-appearance. The Tribunal reviewed the cause list and agreed with the appellants' claim, necessitating the reconsideration of the rejected miscellaneous order.

4. In the final decision, the Tribunal recalled the stay order and the subsequent miscellaneous application for stay order, setting a date for their disposal. All appellants were present during the proceedings, and the Tribunal emphasized no further adjournments would be entertained. The matters were scheduled for disposal, with a warning that decisions would be made based on the records if the appellants failed to appear on the specified date.