2015 (11) TMI 897 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Ex-parte order passed - Held that - It is seen that on 22.01.2014, these matters were listed at Sl.No.37, 38 and 39 and on the same date, there were some other matters also listed at Sl.Nos.10 to 15, in respect of which, Shri Bipin Garg was the Counsel and he had argued those matters. According to the appellant s Counsel, the matter was called at around 4 P.M. in the afternoon and at that time, since he had to go somewhere for some personal work, he had instructed his clerk to seek adjournment, as the brief of this matter had been received by him only a day before and he was not prepared to argue this matter. In this factual background, we are of the view that that there are genuine reasons for non-appearance of the appellant. On going through this order 2015 (10) TMI 1631 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it is clear that not only the order is ex parte order passed without hearing the appellant - Since this is a non-speaking order passed ex parte and since from the facts on record, it appears that there were genuine reasons for inability of the Counsel for the appellant to argue this matter at that time, we deem it fit to recall this order. - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeals dismissed ex parte due to non-appearance of counsel.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the restoration of appeals that were dismissed ex parte by the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel, Shri Bipin Garg, argued that on the scheduled hearing date, he was unprepared to argue the case as he had received the brief only a day before and had personal commitments. Despite instructing his clerk to seek an adjournment, the matter proceeded without him. The Departmental Representative opposed the restoration applications, claiming that the appeals were dismissed after considering the merits and that there was no record of an adjournment request.

Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides and the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel had valid reasons for non-appearance on the hearing date. The Tribunal found that the original order dismissing the appeals was ex parte and did not discuss the merits of the case. The order cited the use of fraudulent documents by the appellant without a detailed examination of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant deserved a fresh hearing on the merits and decided to recall the order dated 22.01.2014. The appeals were restored for a new hearing scheduled for 18.03.2015 without the need for issuing a notice.

In essence, the judgment emphasizes the importance of fair proceedings and the opportunity for parties to present their case effectively. It highlights the need for proper consideration of all aspects before making a decision and ensures that procedural fairness is maintained in legal proceedings.