2016 (7) TMI 149 - SC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal before the Tribunal - CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non prosecution - due to inadvertance the counsel for the assessee could not remain present before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - SC restored the appeal before the tribunal subject to the condition that entire amount of duty as demanded shall be pre-deposited.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-appearance of counsel before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to an unfavorable decision.
2. Absence of respondent before the tribunal despite notice.
3. Setting aside the tribunal's judgment and remitting the matter.
4. Requirement of depositing a specific amount for the appeal to proceed.
5. Timeframe for the disposal of the appeal by the tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, resulting in the inability to present necessary points, which led to a decision favoring the revenue. The appellant's counsel highlighted this inadvertence, emphasizing the impact on the case.

2. The second issue revolves around the absence of the respondent before the tribunal despite being served notice. The court noted this absence and considered the duty amount, interest, and penalty involved under relevant sections of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3. Addressing the third issue, the court, after hearing both parties, decided to set aside the tribunal's judgment and remit the matter back to the tribunal. This decision aimed at ensuring the cause of justice is served appropriately in light of the circumstances presented.

4. Moving on to the fourth issue, the court ordered the appellant to deposit a specific sum of ?10,00,000 with the respondent within eight weeks for the appeal to proceed. This deposit condition was crucial for further consideration of the case by the tribunal.

5. Lastly, the court specified a timeframe for the disposal of the appeal by the tribunal, directing it to complete the process within three months from the date of the deposit. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would result in the impugned order becoming effective.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by setting aside the tribunal's decision, requiring a deposit for the appeal to proceed, and imposing a timeline for the tribunal to dispose of the case. No costs were awarded in this matter.