DHAR CEMENT LIMITED Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claimed and took benefit of concessional excise duty under notification 23/89 as amended by notification 123/89. Later Revenue put the company on notice raising a demand of Rs. 45 lacs or so on the plea that the benefit was taken wrongly. Upon adjudication demand was 'educed to Rs. 21 lacs.

(2.) PETITIONER took appeal to Commissioner (A) who allowed the appeal and quashed the demand. Revenue took appeal against this to CEGAT which came up for consideration and disposal before it on 24-12-1998. But on this fateful day petitioner's counsel Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay could not reach in time due to delay in the train arrival. He reached at 2. 00 PM and requested the Tribunal to hear him. But Tribunal declined on the ground that it had heard appellant (Revenue) counsel and allowed the appeal.

(3.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition on the sole ground that Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have heard him in the matter before allowing tine appeal. L/c for petitioner Mr. Upadhyay placed reliance on 1996 (86) E. L. T. 472, a judgment of the Supreme Court laying down thus :