9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te its case. There is absolutely no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The first respondent/Tribunal by dismissing the appeal by observing so deprived the assessee of its right to prosecute the appeal on merits. As such, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court and the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of assessee. - CMA.No.1384 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Gurumoorthy For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas JUDGMENT (Delivered by K. B. K. Vasuki, J) The assessee is the appellant herein. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the appeal and confirmed the order of the Second Respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise. The correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals was challenged by way of further appeal before the first respondent/Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising serious grounds. The case was before the Tribunal repeatedly adjourned and there were totally 8 adjournments, out of which, 3 adjournments were at the instance of the assessee on different grounds. The Tribunal on the hearing date on 03.06.2013 rejected the request for further adjournment and dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the assessee before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of occasions on which the case was adjourned at the instance of the appellant/assessee and having regard to the different reasons, which were compelling in nature for which the adjournment were sought for, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and ought to have considered granting one more opportunity to the appellant/assessee to prosecute its case. There is absolutely no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The first respondent/Tribunal by dismissing the appeal by observing so deprived the assessee of its right to prosecute the appeal on merits. As such, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court and the matter be remanded back for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
