TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the present appeal are as under: A Show Cause Notice cum Demand Notice came to be issued by the Additional Director General, DGCI, West Zone Mumbai on 14th August, 2001 to the assessee. By order dated 16th January, 2009, the appellant confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal. Along with an appeal an application for stay of the order impugned before the learned CESTAT was also filed. In so far as the present respondent/assessee is concerned, vide order dated 4th February, 2011 the learned Tribunal directed the respondent herein to make deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance on 6th May, 2011. The learned Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this respect relies on the judgments of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy v. Union of India 2006 (204) ELT 43, in the case of Messrs Priya Dyers v. CCE [2013] 40 STT 328, in the case of Hussain Haji Harun alias Hussein Kabiju v. Union of India AIR 1988 Guj. 218. The learned Counsel further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996] 6 STC 92. 5. For considering the rival submissions, it will be necessary to refer to Rules 20 and 41 of the said rules which read thus: "Rule 20.Action on appeal for appellant's default: Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mple powers which can be used to prevent the abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. It will be relevant to quote paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in case the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) which reads thus: "6. If, in a given case, it is established that the respondent was unable to appear before it for no fault of his own, the ends of justice would clearly require that the ex-parte order against him should be set aside. Not to do go on the ground of lack of power would be manifest injustice. Quite apart from the inherent power that every tribunal and court constituted to do justice has in this respect, CEGAT is clothed with express power under Rule 41 to make such order as is nec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been reiterated by this Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1964] 52 ITR 583: (AIR 1964 SC 1329) where it was observed that it was well settled that a wrong reference to the power under which action was taken by the Government would per se vitiate that action if it could be justified under some other power under which Government could lawfully do that act. See also the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nani Gopal Biswas v. Municipality of Howrah 1958 SCR 774 at p. 779 : (AIR 1958 SC 141 at pp.142-43" 9. In that view of the matter, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), under Rule 41 the CESTAT has wide powers to prevent abuse of its process and to se....