2000 (3) TMI 114 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty paid during a specific period.
2. Appeal for setting aside an ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the appellant's Counsel.
3. Justification for non-appearance of Counsel and its impact on the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was decided against the assessees, holding them not entitled to a refund of duty paid during a specific period as they had collected the duty from their customers. The concept of unjust enrichment was invoked based on the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.).

2. The appellant's Counsel failed to appear for the hearing, leading to an ex-parte order. The appellant argued for setting aside the order citing the Tribunal's power to do so if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. References were made to the decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) and Mysore Paper Mills v. C.C.E. Bangalaore - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 524, where similar orders were recalled.

3. The request to set aside the ex-parte order was opposed by the learned DR, emphasizing the lack of reasons for the Counsel's non-appearance. The Tribunal found no cause shown for non-appearance and declined to recall the dismissal order. The case laws cited by the appellant were deemed distinguishable, as they involved valid explanations for non-appearance, unlike in the present case.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision against the assessees regarding the refund of duty paid. The request to set aside the ex-parte order due to the Counsel's non-appearance was rejected, as no sufficient cause was demonstrated. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing valid reasons for non-appearance to warrant the recall of orders, as evidenced by precedents where such reasons were accepted.