High Court overturns Tribunal's default dismissal, stresses appeal merits. Remands for fresh consideration, restores both appellants.

The High Court found the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal for default unsustainable in law. The Court emphasized the need to decide appeals on merits and not dismiss them for non-appearance when genuine reasons are provided. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed restoration of both the appellant's appeal and the company's appeal under liquidation, stressing the importance of hearing substantial appeals and ensuring notice to the Official Liquidator for the company.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for restoration of appeal dismissed for default - Whether Tribunal erred in dismissing appeal without considering grounds raised - Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to dismiss appeal for non-appearance - Whether Tribunal should have restored appeal for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Director of a private limited company under liquidation against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal filed by the appellant due to default in appearance.

2. The substantial question of law admitted for consideration was whether the Tribunal's order was bad in law for not strictly following legal principles set by the Supreme Court and High Courts when deciding the issue.

3. The original order confirmed a demand of central excise duty against the company under liquidation along with penalties, including a penalty imposed on the appellant as the Commercial Director of the company.

4. The Tribunal had passed interim orders between 2014 and 2017, including directing the Official Liquidator to file a statement of affairs. The appeals were dismissed for default when both the Official Liquidator and the appellant were not represented during a hearing.

5. The appellant filed an application for restoration citing ill-health and genuine reasons for non-appearance, emphasizing the Tribunal's power to restore appeals under relevant rules.

6. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the application stating lack of diligence on the appellant's part and no representation for the Official Liquidator or the co-noticee.

7. The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not consider the appellant's contentions in the restoration application, which included legal precedents supporting restoration of appeals dismissed for default.

8. Referring to the decisions in Viral Laminates (P) Ltd. and Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills, the High Court emphasized that appeals should be decided on merits and not dismissed for non-appearance, especially when sufficient cause is shown.

9. The High Court found the Tribunal's order unsustainable in law as it failed to address the grounds raised by the appellant and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

10. The High Court directed restoration of both the appellant's appeal and the company's appeal under liquidation, emphasizing the importance of hearing substantial appeals and ensuring notice to the Official Liquidator for the company.

11. The judgments referred to highlighted the necessity of deciding appeals on merits and not dismissing them for non-appearance, especially in cases where genuine reasons are provided, as in the appellant's situation.

---