9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end the hearing. 2. A brief history of this case relevant for the purpose is narrated below: CESTAT passed an order dated 20.11.2012, ordering pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks requiring compliance to be reported on 6.2.2013. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 5.2.2013 noting the grievance of the appellant that the order dated 20.11.2012 was passed in the absence of the appellant stated as under: "We feel that it would be appropriate for the appellant to move an application under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and in particular under Rule 20 thereof seeking the setting aside of the order dated 20.11.2012 on the ground that no notice, as was required under Rule 18 of the said rules, had been given/served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015. In default, the appeal shall dismiss. A copy of this order shall be dispatched to the appellant. One copy shall also be furnished to Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. AR for departmental service on the appellant." We find CESTAT on 4.12.2015 passed an interim order No. 216/2015 which is also reproduced below : "Per Justice G. Raghuram: Appellant's Counsel seeks adjournment of hearing of the Misc. application filed for seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2015 whereby the stay application was dismissed for default. Since notice intimating hearing of the stay application on 21.9.2015 was despatched to the appellant on 2.6.2015 but was returned with the postal endorsement: 'noticee is not available at the addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is found from case records that at least 5 communications sent to the appellant on different dates were returned by postal authorities with the remark to the effect that no person was presently available at that address by that name. Indeed even the order dated 21.9.2015 and an interim order dated 4.12.2015 sent to the appellant's address were also returned by postal authorities with similar remarks. The principles of natural justice require that a person should be given an opportunity of being heard. It is evident that several notices sent to the appellant were returned with the remark that no such person was available at that address. We have verified that the address on which the notices were sent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
