UMIYA PUMPS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 8.1.2018 passed by CESTAT dismissing the appeal of the petitioner exparte. Tribunal recorded that on three previous occasions, time was sought and granted. On the date of hearing, no one was present for the petitioner. Tribunal thereupon examined the issues on merits and confirmed the orders passed by the departmental authorities.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consultant of the petitioner who was regularly appearing for the petitioner was travelling abroad and therefore, there was no representation on the date of hearing. For one lapse, the petitioner could not be penalised.

(3.) Tribunal has of-course, gone on examination of merits. However, the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. The matter examined by the Tribunal appearing to be predominantly on factual basis, we therefore, enable the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and make submissions before the Tribunal.