2015 (4) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeals - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Ex-parte order passed - Held that - on earlier occasions, the adjournment was not sought by the counsel for the respondent but on account of non-availability of the Bench, the matter was adjourned, it cannot be said that the respondent was not keen to pursue the remedy against Revenue's appeal. Moreover, from the letter dated 25.03.2014 from the Registry to the CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi, which was sent to the respondent in response to their application under RTI Act, shows that there is no acknowledgement of the service of the appeal available with the Registry and also there is no acknowledgement of the service of the notice fixing the date of hearing on 02.01.2014 - Assessee had neither received the copy of the Revenue's appeal nor they had received the notice of hearing of the appeal on 2.1.2014. In view of these facts, we hold that non-appearance of the respondent at the time of hearing of the matter on 2.1.2014 was due to non-receipt of the notice of hearing and not only this, they had not received the copy of the Revenue's appeal. - Order recalled and appeal restored.

Summary

Issues:
Applications for restoration of dismissed appeals due to non-appearance of the respondent without requesting an adjournment. Tribunal dismissing appeals ex parte after several adjournments granted. Allegation of lack of keenness by respondent to pursue remedy against Revenue's appeal. Plea for restoration opposed by Departmental Representative citing Tribunal's consideration of case merits. Respondent's argument of non-receipt of notice and Revenue's appeal copy. Applicability of legal precedents regarding non-appearance due to non-service of notice.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications seeking restoration of appeals dismissed ex parte by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that despite several adjournments granted, the respondent did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The respondent contended that they did not receive the notice for the hearing or a copy of the Revenue's appeal. The respondent invoked legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment and decisions by other High Courts, emphasizing the importance of the right to be heard before a statutory authority. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the case records.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal dated back to 2005 and had faced multiple adjournments due to various reasons, including the non-availability of the Bench. It was highlighted that the respondent's absence on the final hearing date was attributed to the non-receipt of the notice of hearing and the Revenue's appeal copy. Referring to a letter from the Registry in response to an RTI application, it was established that the necessary acknowledgments were missing, supporting the respondent's claim of not being served the relevant documents. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent's argument that their non-appearance was justified due to the lack of essential notifications.

In light of the facts presented and the legal principles invoked, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's absence was reasonable and not indicative of a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal against the Revenue. Citing legal precedents emphasizing the right to a fair hearing, the Tribunal decided to recall the Final Order of dismissal and restore the appeals for fresh hearings. The appeals, originating from 2005, were scheduled for a new hearing date without the issuance of a separate notice, considering the respondent's presence in court during the judgment delivery.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring parties' right to be heard and the necessity of proper notification procedures in legal proceedings, leading to the restoration of dismissed appeals for a fair reconsideration.