2018 (12) TMI 33 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - ex-parte order passed - appellant was asked to deposit entire duty and penalty confirmed by the adjudication order within 60 days of the receipt of the order - stay application also dismissed ex-parte - Held that - The order passed by the Tribunal are without hearing the appellant, and therefore, dismissing the appeals without hearing the appellants and without discussing the merits of the case will not be in the interest of imparting justice - the appellants need to be heard before a decision on merits of the case is taken on the appeals. The appeals are to be restored to their original number in the interest of justice and recovery against impugned order-in-original may be stayed till final disposal of appeal - the Restoration of Appeal Application is allowed with stay of recovery of duty and penalties imposed in the impugned order in original.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution without serving notices on the appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal along with a stay application. An ex-parte stay order was passed, requiring the appellant to deposit the duty and penalty within a specified period. Despite the appellant's request for an adjournment due to prior commitments, the Tribunal dismissed the stay and appeal in subsequent orders. The restoration applications were also dismissed ex-parte as notices were returned unserved, citing the appellants' absence. The Tribunal observed a pattern of notices being returned with remarks "left without address." The learned Advocate argued that the appeals were dismissed without serving notices on the appellant, citing relevant judgments emphasizing the need to decide cases on merit rather than dismissing them for default.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the previous orders were passed without hearing the appellant and without discussing the case's merits, which could compromise justice. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted that the Act does not empower the Tribunal to dismiss appeals for default or lack of prosecution if the appellant is absent during the hearing. The Tribunal referenced a case involving the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the necessity of deciding appeals on their merits rather than dismissing them due to the appellant's absence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants must be heard before a decision on the case's merits is made.

In light of the Supreme Court decision and the procedural rules, the Tribunal allowed the restoration of the appeals in the interest of justice. The appeals were to be reinstated with a stay on the recovery of duty and penalties until their final disposal. This decision aimed to rectify the previous dismissals made without proper consideration of the merits and without affording the appellants an opportunity to present their case.