COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. YAMUNA BARDANA TRADING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Restoration of Appeal application filed by the Respondent on the ground that the instant appeal was listed for hearing on 14 -11 -2005 and the hearing notice was received by the applicant on 14 -11 -2005. However, when the matter came up on 14 -11 -2005, the counsel fell ill and did not reach the Tribunal on this date. The appeal was taken up and an ex parte order was passed. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the order has not made the submissions made by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). He also heavily relied upon the Apex Court judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE , particularly with reference to paras 4 and 5, which are reproduced below:

(2.) THE learned DR states that it was not a case where the applicant's appeal was disposed of without hearing, but it was a case where Revenue's appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal. He heavily relied upon Rule 20 which has stated in no uncertain terms that the same would be applicable in respect of the Appellant alone. Rule 20 reads as follows:

(3.) I have heard both sides and examined the record. It is true that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, deals with cases where the appellant had defaulted. Strictly speaking, this Rule cannot be made applicable in this case where the Revenue is the appellant and not the applicant who is just a Respondent. However, from the record, it is clear that the respondent has been sufficiently informed about the proceedings coming up before the Bench and he had not responded to the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no sufficient cause has been made out for non -appearance at the time of passing the order. Since the order has been made out on the basis of an appeal filed by the Revenue and not by the applicant, (who is only a Respondent), and that too after giving sufficient opportunities, I do not consider it a fit case to interfere in any manner with the order, already passed, which, in my opinion, would amount to reviewing the same. The application filed by the Respondent is, therefore, rejected.