9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lis between the parties was decided on merits. The fact that Rule 21 does not expressly state that an order on an appeal heard and disposed of ex-parte can be set aside on sufficient cause for the absence or the respondent being shown does not mean that CEGAT has on power to do so. Rule 41 gives CEGAT wide powers to make such orders or give such directions as might be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or, most importantly, to secure the ends of justice. The records show that the notice had been sent to the respondent but the same had been returned back with the remarks that "there is nobody in the factory" implying that the factory is closed. The endorsement by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal ) whereby the appeal filed by the assessee had been dismissed and order dated 12.4.2013 (Annexure A-6) vide which application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed. The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice? (b) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has failed to consider merits of the case and has passed cryptic perfunctory order? (c) Whether demand on the basis of mere entry in balance sheet can be raised? (d) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has failed to consider actual facts and figures, therefore, order is perverse and contrary to the record? 2. Put shortly, the facts n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -original and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure A-4) dismissed the appeal exparte as none had appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for restoration of appeal. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2013 (Annexure A-6) dismissed the said application. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an error had crept in noting the date as 30.8.2012 instead of 30.7.2012 and, therefore, non-appearance on 30.7.2012 was unintentional. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957) provided that without sufficient cause being shown, if any party to proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal failed to attend or be represented, the Industrial Tribunal would proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented. If, therefore, there was no sufficient cause for the absence of a party, the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to proceed ex-parte. But if sufficient cause was shown which prevented a party from appearing, the Industrial Tribunal had the power to set aside the ex-parte award. the power to proceed ex-parte carried with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 24.3.2009. In the appeal a cross-objection was also filed by the appellant. Notice was issued to the appellant in the appeal which was returned with the endorsement of postal authorities there is nobody in the factory . The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and allowed the appeal of the Revenue and disposed of the cross-objection of the appellant by the order dated 3.2.2011. The appellant filed an application to recall the order of the Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal while rejecting the application of the appellant has observed as follows in paragraph 4: I have carefully considered the submissions from both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
