2018 (9) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise

Service of Hearing notice - notice could not be served on account of change of Address - Held that - The appellant has shifted from their address B-46, Sector-60, Noida and the Counsel for the appellant has also withdrawn Vakalatnama and that the appellants has not registered changed address with the registry of this Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to communicate date of hearing to the appellants - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Failure to appear for hearing, change of address by the appellant, non-registration of new address with the tribunal, dismissal of appeal based on revenue's submissions.

Analysis:
1. Failure to Appear for Hearing: The judgment highlights the absence of the appellant during the hearing despite efforts made to serve the hearing notice. The Assistant Commissioner informed that the unit had shifted two years back, and the notice for the hearing could not be served as a result. The record revealed that the appellant's Advocate had requested withdrawal of Vakalatnama during a previous hearing. The matter was remanded by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for both sides to present their case.

2. Change of Address by the Appellant: The appellant had shifted from the registered address without updating the same with the tribunal. This failure to provide the new address hindered the communication of the hearing date to the appellant, leading to their non-appearance during the proceedings.

3. Non-Registration of New Address with the Tribunal: The judgment underscores the importance of the appellant registering their changed address with the tribunal to ensure effective communication regarding hearing dates. The lack of updated information impeded the tribunal's ability to notify the appellant about the proceedings.

4. Dismissal of Appeal based on Revenue's Submissions: In the absence of the appellant and considering the submissions made by the revenue, the tribunal found no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant. The learned A.R. for revenue argued that the appellant should have updated their address with the registry to ensure receipt of the hearing notice, emphasizing the availability of case status and the case list on the website for reference.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the appeal due to the appellant's failure to appear for the hearing, their change of address without updating the tribunal, and the lack of merit in the case as argued by the revenue. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and effective communication in legal proceedings to ensure fair adjudication.