2017 (10) TMI 657 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deciding the Appeal preferred by the Appellant on merits in absence of the Appellant or its Advocate especially in the light of the facts pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal? Held that - It is true that the Appellate Tribunal could have decided the Appeal in absence of the Appellant. However, the Appellate Tribunal was required to record reasons by applying its mind to the grounds of challenge in the Memorandum of Appeal. On plain reading of the impugned judgment, the Appellate Tribunal has not adverted itself to the grounds of challenge incorporated in the Memorandum of Appeal filed before it and in any case, there are no elaborate findings recorded in the impugned judgment - In any case, the Appellate Tribunal has not done its duty by adverting to the grounds in the Memorandum of Appeal and by recording the reasons for dismissing the Appeal. The impugned judgment is quashed and appeals are restored to the file of Appellate Tribunal - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissal by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in absence of the Appellant or its Advocate.
2. Challenge to non-imposition of penalty on a Director.
3. Lack of findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the judgment.
4. Duty of the Appellate Tribunal to consider grounds of challenge in the Memorandum of Appeal.
5. Restoration of Appeals to the file of the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the question of whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deciding an Appeal in the absence of the Appellant or its Advocate. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal without proper findings, leading to the issue of due process and fair consideration. The Appellant's counsel argued that the Advocate representing them had passed away, and they were not notified of the hearing dates. The High Court found that while the Tribunal could proceed in absence of the Appellant, it was necessary to record reasons and consider the grounds of challenge in the Memorandum of Appeal, which the Tribunal failed to do.

2. Another issue addressed in the judgment was the challenge to the non-imposition of a penalty on a Director of the Appellant Company. The Tribunal had decided on this matter along with the main Appeal. The High Court noted the lack of detailed findings in the Tribunal's judgment regarding this issue, highlighting the importance of proper reasoning and consideration of all relevant aspects in such decisions.

3. The High Court emphasized the duty of the Appellate Tribunal to thoroughly examine the grounds of challenge presented in the Memorandum of Appeal and provide reasoned judgments. In this case, the Tribunal had not fulfilled this duty, leading to a lack of clarity and fairness in the decision-making process.

4. As a result of the deficiencies identified in the Tribunal's handling of the Appeals, the High Court ordered the restoration of both Appeals to the file of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings. The High Court stressed the importance of giving priority to the disposal of long-pending Appeals, keeping all contentions open for consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness, proper reasoning, and adherence to legal duties in the appellate process, ultimately leading to the restoration of the Appeals for further consideration by the Appellate Tribunal.