PRAJYOT ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal on 29 -10 -2013 and subsequently on 13 -12 -2013. By the first order, the Tribunal ex parte decided an application for waiver of pre -deposit and stay. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that a substantial question of law would arise inasmuch as the Tribunal not only proceeded ex parte in the absence of the Advocate, but also did not take note of the request in writing made by the Appellant's Advocate appearing before the Tribunal that the date and time, namely, 29 -10 -2013 is inconvenient, for him on account of his personal difficulty. If such written communication is addressed to the Registry of the Tribunal and is taken on record, then, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the contents of the said communication and could not have proceeded ex parte. In fact the position is that the matter was adjourned once because of non -availability of the Bench itself and on second occasion, the Department sought time. It is only on one occasion that the Appellant and his Advocate were not present. In these circumstances while passing an order or direction to deposit the duty demanded partially and by expressing an opinion on merits of the controversy, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in law. The Tribunal's order results in grave miscarriage of justice.

(2.) THE request then made is that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the application to rehear the matter is some sort of review. That was not permissible. In effect and essence, the application was seeking modification of the earlier order and in any event if the Tribunal's power to recall its own ex parte order was invoked, then, the Tribunal ought to have considered the matter from a different perspective and in the larger interest of justice ought to have recalled its earlier order.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders under challenge. We have also perused the Appeal paper book. We find that the substantial question of law which arises in this Appeal is, whether the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances and in view of the written request for postponement of date on record, erred in proceeding ex parte and passing an order on merits?