UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHHATTISGARH ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises from order dated 3 -11 -2009 [2010 (262) E.L.T. 582 (Tribunal)] in Appeal No. E/254/2006 -Excise Branch, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal held that the respondent was liable to pay 8% of the value of electricity sold to outside buyers for the period October, 2001 to July, 2003 as it had failed to demonstrate fulfillment of the eligibility conditions laid down in Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and did not maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the generation/manufacture of electricity sold to outside buyers. Holding that there was no deliberate intention to evade duty, the Tribunal opined not to levy penalty for normal period of liability relying on : 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) (Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -Ill) and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for working out the quantum of demand, but only for the normal period, i.e., one year.

(2.) THE order sheets of this case reveal that the respondent was represented by Counsel on 14 -6 -2010. It was again duly represented on 25 -6 -2010 by the same Counsel. On that date, there was an office note that no Vakalatnama had been filed by the Counsel. The respondent continued to be represented by the same Counsel on 30 -6 -2010, when the office again pointed out the defect that no Vakalatnama had been filed on its behalf. The respondent continued to be represented by the same Counsel on 3 -8 -2010 and 16 -8 -2010 again with the office note that Vakalatnama had not been filed. The respondent was represented by the same Counsel on 6 -9 -2010 when submission was made on its behalf that Tax Case (PR) No. 1843 of 2010 had been filed by it as cross -appeal. The order sheet of Tax Case (PR) No. 1843 of 2010 reveals that it stood dismissed for noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 29 -9 -2011 for removing the defects.

(3.) IF the respondent has not taken adequate steps to protect its interest for which the Court has granted more than sufficient opportunity, it has only itself to blame. The Court cannot wait ad infinitum. If a party with full awareness of the pendency of a case against it, more particularly after having entered appearance and filed cross -appeal also does not ensure its representation, it is not open for it to urge that the order has been passed behind its back or without opportunity of hearing. The situation is the creation of the respondent and it must bear the burden.