2018 (2) TMI 582 - AT - Customs

Application to recall the final order - service of notice - Held that - There is no grievance on the part of the ld. Counsel that the earlier intimations for adjourning the matters were not received by them. The present notice adjourning the case has also been sent to the very same address. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the notice was not received by them. There is no affidavit filed that they have not received notice. It is only a verified petition - In the absence of affidavit the contention that they have not received the notice is not acceptable. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Recall of final order passed by the Tribunal due to absence of appellant's counsel and alleged non-receipt of hearing notice.
- Appellant's plea for a chance to present case on merits.
- Revenue's opposition to the application, citing disposal of appeal on merits and lack of right to file for recall.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Recall of final order
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the final order passed by the Tribunal, contending that the appeal was disposed of in his absence. The appellant's counsel stated that he did not receive the notice of hearing for the date of disposal. The appellant had earlier appeared for hearings on different dates, but on the final date of disposal, the appellant and the counsel claimed non-receipt of the notice. The appellant argued that the appeal was disposed of on merits in his absence, and all issues were not addressed by the Tribunal. The appellant requested a chance to present the case on merits.

Issue 2: Opposition by Revenue
The Revenue, represented by the Ld. DR, opposed the application for recall. The Revenue argued that the appeal was disposed of on merits, and therefore, the appellant had no right to file for the recall of the final order. The Revenue contended that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable under the circumstances.

Detailed Analysis:
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the final order indicated no representation on behalf of the appellant during the hearing. The notice fixing the date of hearing was issued almost a month before the hearing date and was sent to both the appellant and the Counsel on record. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's claim of not receiving the notice was not substantiated, as previous adjournment notices were received by them. The Tribunal highlighted that the cause-list was regularly published on the Tribunal's website, and efforts were being made to dispose of older cases without adjournments. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was not dismissed for non-prosecution but was disposed of on merits. The Tribunal found no affidavit or evidence supporting the appellant's claim of non-receipt of the notice, only a verified petition. Additionally, the Tribunal stated that it had no powers for the review of its own orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking the recall of the final order. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely communication and adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.