AMBIKA ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Rujuta Oza learned counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. We have heard Ms. Avani S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Oza, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Rujuta Oza for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26-12-2011 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (For short 'CESTAT'), Ahmedabad, by which the petitioner's Stay Application has been decided by the Tribunal on 26-12-2011 in absence of the authorized representative of the petitioner and order dated 6-1-2012 passed by the Tribunal, by which the Stay Application has been partly allowed and the petition has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000,00.00 (Rupees Forty Lacs) within a period of 8 weeks as a pre-deposit for maintaining the Appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) It is not disputed that the petitioner had filed a letter dated 20-12-2011 before the Tribunal informing that the Chartered Accountant Mr. Hardik P. Shah, was out of station and therefore, he would not be in a position to appear before the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned to some other date. Though, the Tribunal has mentioned this fact in its order, but has refused to adjourn the matter without assigning any proper and cogent reason for not adjourning the matter. The authorized representative of the petitioner was required to be heard in respect of Stay Application and if, he was out of station then adjournment ought to have been granted by the Tribunal to enable him to appear before the Tribunal and argue Stay Application.