2002 (1) TMI 72 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT).
2. Interpretation of Section 35C(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Section 129B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedural) Rules, 1982.
4. Applicability of previous court judgments on dismissing appeals for non-appearance.
5. Power of the Appellate Tribunal to restore an appeal dismissed for default.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a private company aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal by CEGAT for want of prosecution. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should decide appeals on merit, not dismiss them for non-appearance.

2. The Court analyzed Section 35C(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act and Section 129B(1) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of the term "thereon" in requiring the Tribunal to decide appeals on their merits, as per the legislative intent.

3. The validity of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedural) Rules, 1982 was questioned, with the petitioner arguing that it contradicted the provisions of the Acts by allowing dismissal for default of appearance.

4. Previous court judgments, including one by the Gujarat High Court, were cited to support the argument that dismissing appeals for non-appearance is contrary to the legislative framework and should be decided on merit.

5. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that an appeal decided ex parte can be recalled if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown, reinforcing the principle that appeals should not be dismissed solely for lack of appearance.

6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of dismissal and restoring the appeal before CEGAT for a fresh decision on merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties involved. No costs were awarded in the judgment.