2004 (3) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-appearance

In the present case, the appellant sought restoration of the appeal that was dismissed for non-appearance. The appellant argued that they were not informed about the adjourned hearing date and, as a result, could not be represented during the hearing. The appellant also contended that there is no provision in the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules for the dismissal of appeals for non-appearance, citing a previous ruling by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. On careful consideration, the Tribunal noted the absence of any endorsement from the Registry regarding the notice of the hearing date and the unavailability of acknowledgement cards. Additionally, there was no explanation provided for the adjournment of the previous hearing date. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of a specific provision in the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules for dismissing appeals due to non-appearance, especially after the Proviso, Rule 20, had been struck down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and decided to recall the Final Order dismissing the appeal and restored both appeals to their original numbers for a final hearing on a specified date.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the rules governing the dismissal of appeals for non-appearance. It underscores the necessity for proper communication of hearing dates to the concerned parties and the significance of maintaining accurate records to ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial process. The Tribunal's decision to restore the appeals emphasizes the principle of providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and seek redressal, especially when procedural irregularities or lack of communication have impeded their participation in the legal proceedings.