2018 (9) TMI 1870 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Restored by CESTAT ALLAHABAD for Non-Prosecution Error

M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited  M/s Paharpur Plastics And  M/s Unispanners Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-I  

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD recalled the dismissal order and restored three appeals that were dismissed for non-prosecution. Despite finding ... Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution/default of non-appearance - case of appellant is that appearance could not be caused by the appellant on 13.11.2017 as the counsel representing the appellants was engaged by the Central Excise Department to represent them before the High Court and as such under a belief that he cannot argue the matter against the Central Excise Department in Tribunal, no appearance was caused. HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the plea of the assessee inasmuch as there is no adjournment request made by the appellants for bringing the factual position on record and inasmuch as the appellants were unrepresented on all the 3-4 dates of hearing, but in the interest of justice, it is deemed fit to recall the order of dismissal and restore the appeals to their original number. Appeal restored - application allowed. Issues: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, under valuation of goodsThe judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved three applications seeking restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeals were dismissed as the appellants were absent on multiple occasions despite the matter being listed for disposal. The first listing was on 12.05.2017, where no one represented the appellants. Subsequent adjournments were granted, but the appellants remained unrepresented, leading to the final dismissal on 13.11.2017. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that their absence on the final date was due to their counsel being engaged by the Central Excise Department for a separate matter, creating a conflict of interest. Despite finding no merit in the appellant's plea, the judge, in the interest of justice, decided to recall the dismissal order and restore the appeals to their original number.One of the issues involved in all the appeals was the under-valuation of goods. Due to this common issue, the matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench for further proceedings. The Registry was instructed to schedule the date for the hearing accordingly. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, granting the ROA applications and allowing the restoration of the appeals dismissed for non-prosecution.