9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it could not be held that the appellant had intentionally avoided to receive the notice. Moreover, unless a litigant is gross negligent in pursuing the litigation, the litigant should not be made to suffer for any bonafide error - Appeal restored before tribunal. - CUSAP No. 30 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 5-9-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Fateh Deep Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing CUSAP Nos. 30 and 31 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CUSAP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of goods, also imposed penalty of ₹ 18.10 lacs. In pursuance thereof, the assessee deposited penalty vide TR-6 dated 10.9.2007 and re-exported goods. Feeling aggrieved with the imposition of penalty, the assessee filed an appeal (Annexure A- 4) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order 27.3.2012 (Annexure A- 5) set aside the order qua levy of penalty. The revenue challenged the said order (Annexure A-5) before this Court by way of CUSAP No. 9 of 2012. This Court vide order dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure A-6) set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh. In pursuance to the order dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure A-6), the assessee filed written submissions dated 25.7.2013 (Annexure A-7) before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the record. 7. The explanation of learned counsel for the appellant is that no notice of listing of appeal on 5.2.2014 was served upon the assessee and it was under these circumstances that the counsel or representative of the appellant could not appear on the due date. No material has been referred to by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to establish that notice of date of hearing fixed for 5.2.2014 was ever served upon the appellant. In fact, the Tribunal itself has observed that the notice sent for 5.2.2014 was returned unserved. In such circumstances, it could not be held that the appellant had intentionally avoided to receive the notice. Moreover, unless a litigant is gross negligent in pursuing the litigation, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
