Court quashes tribunal order, emphasizes procedural fairness.

The Court quashed the order of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) due to lack of notice to the Petitioner and failure to consider Appeal grounds, restoring the Appeal for fresh disposal with proper notice. Emphasizing the importance of proper service to parties, the Court set aside the previous order and allowed CESTAT to independently consider the case. The Petition was disposed of without costs, and a related Customs Appeal was dismissed at the Petitioner's counsel's request. The judgment focused on procedural fairness and ensuring parties' rights are upheld during legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning order of CESTAT, Allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation, Appeal dismissal due to lack of notice, Rectification application rejection, Consideration of grounds in Appeal, Lack of independent findings by Tribunal, Quashing and setting aside of orders, Restoration of Appeal to CESTAT, Giving notice of hearing to Petitioner.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 16th October 2019, which was actually passed on 16th October 2018, rejecting the Petitioner's Misc. Application. The Petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical/electronic goods, was accused of involvement in the mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported Modems. Despite responding to the show cause notice and attending a personal hearing, the Petitioner's Appeal was dismissed in an ex-parte manner on 14th December 2017, leading to the filing of a rectification application before CESTAT.

The Petitioner contended that they did not receive any notice of the hearing before CESTAT, which was affirmed in the affidavit filed by the Respondent. The Petitioner sought rectification of the order on the grounds that their Appeal grounds were not considered, and the Tribunal did not provide independent findings. The Court noted that the CESTAT should have specifically addressed the grounds raised by the Petitioner and given independent findings on the Petitioner's role in the alleged mis-declaration. Due to the lack of notice to the Petitioner and the failure to consider the Appeal grounds, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the Appeal to the file of CESTAT for a fresh disposal after giving notice of hearing to the Petitioner.

The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that parties are properly served before proceeding with the hearing and passing orders. The final order dated 14th December 2017 was also quashed and set aside in relation to the Petitioner. The Court clarified that they did not make any observations on the merits of the case, allowing CESTAT to independently consider and dispose of the Appeal in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Petition was disposed of without any order as to costs. Additionally, the Customs Appeal No.13 of 2020, which was pending in the Court, was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the Petitioner's counsel.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the sequence of events leading to the legal challenge, and the Court's detailed reasoning behind quashing the impugned orders and restoring the Appeal to CESTAT for a fresh disposal with proper notice to the Petitioner.

---