9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , DR, for the Appellant. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. The Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 403-404/2010-SM(BR), dated 17-3-2010 had allowed the Revenue s appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Cenvat credit demand and penalty against the respondent. The order of the Tribunal was an ex parte order, though on merits, as, as recorded in the order, though notice for hearing had been issued to both the respondents, when this matter was called, none appeared on their behalf. One of the respondent M/s. Mithila Malleables (P) Limited filed a ROM No. E/ROM/47/2010 in respect of this order requesting for recall of the Order dated 17-3-2010 so far as it related to them and rehear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the matter be reheard. 2.2 Mrs. R. Jagdev, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the recall of the order and restoration of the appeal stating that the matter is very old, that the notice for hearing had been issued to the respondent and for this reason only, the matter had been decided ex parte, that the matter had been decided on merits and that she relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 532 (Tri. - Del.) = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 94 (Tri.-Del.) and Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Del.), that in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Continental Cement Co. (supra), the Tribunal has held that when the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been dismissed ex parte and the appellant shows that there was sufficient cause for their absence, the order must be recalled and not to do so would be manifest justice. In this regard, paras 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced below :- 4. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Ors., 1981 (2) SCR 341, the same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex parte award, it was as if the party was visited with an award without notice of the proceedings. Where an Industrial Tribunal proceeded to make an award without n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or, most importantly, to secure the ends of justice. 6. If, in a given case, it is established that the respondent was unable to appear before it for no fault of his own, the ends of justice would clearly require that the ex parte order against him should be set aside. Not to do so on the ground of lack of power would be manifest injustice. Quite apart from the inherent power that every tribunal and court constituted to do justice has in this respect, CEGAT is clothed with express power under Rule 41 to make such order as is necessary to secure the ends of justice. CEGAT has, therefore, the power to set aside an order passed ex parte against the respondent before it if it is found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
