UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply filed on behalf of the respondent, in Court today, is taken on record.

(2.) The appellant-assessee is before us, impugning order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure A-5), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to CESTAT), allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as a consequence, restoring order passed by the adjudicating authority.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that merits of the case apart, the appellant had entrusted the appeal to a counsel under the bonafide belief that the counsel would defend the appeal filed by the department. The appellant's counsel, however, did not put in appearance before the Tribunal, on 09.05.2013. The Tribunal apparently annoyed at the large number of adjournments, heard counsel for the respondent-department, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order passed by the adjudicating authority.