2015 (8) TMI 247 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Tribunal dismissed appeal as non prosecution - Held that - considering the number of adjournments already granted in the case and the number of occasions on which the case was adjourned at the instance of the appellant/assessee and having regard to the different reasons, which were compelling in nature for which the adjournment were sought for, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and ought to have considered granting one more opportunity to the appellant/assessee to prosecute its case. There is absolutely no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The first respondent/Tribunal by dismissing the appeal by observing so deprived the assessee of its right to prosecute the appeal on merits. As such, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court and the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution by the Tribunal.
2. Denial of further opportunity by the Tribunal.
3. Dismissal of appeal without considering the merits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Tribunal's order regarding a demand for duty on Sodium Silicates. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after multiple adjournments, including some at the appellant's request. The Tribunal rejected a further adjournment request, citing lack of interest from the appellant. The appellant argued that the dismissal was unfair, as the reasons for adjournments were valid and compelling. The High Court agreed, stating that the Tribunal should have considered granting another opportunity for the appellant to present its case. The Court found no evidence that the appellant was uninterested in pursuing the appeal, leading to interference with the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 2: Denial of Further Opportunity
The Tribunal's refusal to grant another adjournment and subsequent dismissal of the appeal raised concerns about the appellant's right to present its case effectively. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have considered the circumstances and reasons behind the adjournment requests before deciding on non-prosecution. By not allowing further opportunity, the Tribunal deprived the appellant of a fair chance to argue the case on its merits. The Court concluded that the dismissal for non-prosecution was unjustified and warranted intervention to ensure the appellant's right to a proper hearing.

Issue 3: Dismissal Without Considering Merits
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal without delving into the merits of the case was deemed inappropriate by the High Court. The Court highlighted that the appellant had the right to present its arguments and evidence for a fair assessment of the appeal. By not considering the substantive issues, the Tribunal's action was seen as premature and denied the appellant the opportunity to have its case heard fully. The High Court directed the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration on merits, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellant to present its case without unnecessary hindrances.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing on merits. The appellant was instructed to cooperate with the Tribunal for a prompt resolution without seeking further adjournments. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.