2018 (11) TMI 1286 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - on account of the communication gap, the Counsel for the Appellant could not remain present before the Tribunal - Tribunal proceeded ex-parte on the very first day and allowed the Appeal of the Revenue - Held that - The notice of hearing issued by the Tribunal was for the first date and it is not a case that the Appellant had consistently remained absent in past also. The Appellant was also given otherwise reason for nonappearance before the Tribunal. In the larger interest of justice, let issues be decided by the Tribunal after hearing both the sides - Appeal of the Department filed before the Tribunal is restored to the file of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure of the Appellant's Counsel to appear before the Tribunal leading to an ex-parte decision.
2. Application for rectification of the ex-parte decision dismissed by the Tribunal.
3. Appeal challenging the dismissal of the rectification application.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure of the Appellant's Counsel to Appear Before the Tribunal
The Appellant, who was the Respondent before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, faced an ex-parte decision due to the absence of their Counsel on the hearing date. Despite the notice being duly served, a communication gap resulted in the Counsel's non-appearance. The Appellant contended that it was the first instance of such a lapse and requested the Tribunal to allow representation. The Respondent-Revenue argued that the Appellant had the responsibility to present their case. Considering the circumstances, the High Court found it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merits and disposal in accordance with the law.

Issue 2: Application for Rectification Dismissed by the Tribunal
Following the ex-parte decision, the Appellant applied for rectification, which was subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant's Counsel highlighted the communication gap as the reason for non-appearance and emphasized that the Tribunal should have given an opportunity for representation, especially on the first hearing date. The High Court noted that the Appellant had not been consistently absent in the past and set aside the impugned order, directing the Tribunal to hear both sides and decide the issues.

Issue 3: Appeal Challenging the Dismissal of Rectification Application
The present appeal was filed challenging the dismissal of the rectification application. The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal after hearing both parties. The Court restored the Department's appeal to the Tribunal's file for a fresh adjudication. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and decision-making process in legal proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment by the Bombay High Court reflects the importance of procedural fairness and the need for parties to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.