2007 (3) TMI 252 - HC - Central Excise

Application of restoration of appeal - Ex-parte dismissal of appeal by tribunal - If, in a given case, it is established that the respondent was unable to appear before it for no fault of his own, the ends of justice would clearly require that the ex parte order again him should be set aside - In view of above, application of the appellant herein was maintainable before the Tribunal impugned order of tribunal is set aside tribunal is directed to entertain restoration application on merit

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

In this judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the main issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal but was unable to appear, leading to the dismissal of the application seeking restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal held that Rule 20 did not apply to the respondent as it specifically mentioned the term "appellant." However, the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise clarified that the term "appellant" in Rule 20 also encompassed the respondent. The Supreme Court emphasized that the ends of justice required setting aside an ex parte order if the respondent was unable to appear for valid reasons. The High Court, in line with this interpretation, ruled that Rule 20 was not limited to appellants only, and the respondent could also avail of its provisions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting the appellant's application and directed the Tribunal to entertain and decide the application on its merits promptly, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order copy.