TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reinstates appeals for fair hearing after addressing appellants' grievance</h1> <h3>NATIONAL CONDUIT PIPE Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> NATIONAL CONDUIT PIPE Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 196 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Disposal of appeals for non-prosecution and on merits without proper representation.2. Lack of opportunity for the appellants to present their case.3. Consideration of adjournment requests and setting aside ex parte orders.4. Justification for recalling the order and restoring the appeals for regular hearing.Analysis:The Tribunal initially disposed of both appeals for non-prosecution and on merits due to the absence of representation for the appellants. The advocate for the appellants argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case, citing a decision by the Apex Court. On the contrary, the DR contended that notice had been issued, and the grievance was baseless. The Tribunal reviewed the order and noted the appellants' intention to engage a Senior Advocate, but due to a previous stay order and perceived delay tactics, refused an adjournment and proceeded with the disposal.In light of the J.K. Synthetics Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for applicants to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance when seeking to set aside an ex parte order. It clarified that parties cannot automatically expect adjournments and each case must be evaluated individually. While the appellants were indeed unrepresented on the hearing date, the Tribunal acknowledged their desire to engage a Senior Advocate. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' grievance regarding the lack of opportunity to present their case and decided to recall the order for a fair hearing, warning against further adjournments once the appeals are fixed.Therefore, the applications were allowed, the order dated January 21, 2009, was recalled, and the appeals were reinstated for regular hearing on July 2, 2009. This decision aimed to rectify the lack of opportunity for the appellants to argue their case on merits and ensure a fair proceeding while maintaining the efficiency of the legal process by limiting adjournments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
