9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EGAT for setting aside the ex parte order against it ourselves. Appeal allowed. - 3049 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 28-8-1996 - S.P. Bharucha and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. [Order]. - The appellant had filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The appellant filed an appeal before the Collector (Customs) and the appeal was allowed. The respondent, the Collector of Central Excise, filed an appeal thereagainst before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The appeal was on board for hearing on 31st August, 1987. When the appeal reached hearing, the appellant (before us) was not represented. CEGAT heard the departmental representative in support of the appeal and decided it e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to it under Rule 21. CEGAT noted the nature and true character of the order which it passed. It noted the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, 74 ITR 41. It found that where a respondent had not availed of the opportunity to put forward his case. CEGAT was not absolved of its responsibility to decide. It held : "Therefore, even if respondent was not present when the appeal was called for hearing, would not absolve the Tribunal from deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record. That in fact the Tribunal did. The decision taken by the Tribunal in the absence of the respondent is not an ex parte decision or decree as understood under the Code of Civil Procedure or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the Tax Appellate Tribunal were of the widest possible amplitude and carried with them, by necessary implication, all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. Having regard to its powers under Section 254, it was held that the Tax Appellate Tribunal had impliedly been granted the power of doing all such acts and employing such means as were essential and necessary to its ends. The statutory power carried with it the duty in proper cases to make such order for staying proceedings as would prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory. 4.In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Ors., 1981 (2) SCR 341, the same principles were applied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x parte. 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 of the respondent being shown does not mean that CEGAT has no 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
