TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Central Excise, Faridabad. 1.1 The affidavit filed along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. 1.2 CM stands disposed of accordingly. CEA No. 89 of 2013 1.3 This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the appeal filed by the assessee had been dismissed and order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecoverable Aluminium/Zinc scrap in the range of 10% to 17% during the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. According to the respondent-Department, the assessee has wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on inputs and, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2009 to the assessee. The assessee submitted its reply dated 26.11.2009 pleading that the demand could not be raised on the basis of mere scrap declared in the income tax documents. The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure A-1) confirmed the duty amounting to Rs.4,44,995/- and also imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:- "4. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1981 (2) SCR 341, the same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex-parte award, it was as if the party was visited with an award without notice of the proceedings. Where an Industrial Tribunal proceeded to make an award without notice to a party, the award was nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal had not only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 necessary to secure the ends of justice. CEGAT has. therefore, the power to set aside an order passed ex- parte against the respondent before it if it is found that the respondent had, for sufficient cause, been unable to appear." 5. Further, in Pioneer Glass Industries's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... endorsement by the postal authority that "there is nobody in the factory" cannot tantamount to the refusal of the appellant nor that can be read as factory is closed as has been read by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have taken fresh steps for service to the appellant in the manner prescribed under law. 6. The Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application of the appellant. Admittedly, the order was passed without hearing the appellant, hence we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for recall of the order dated 3.2.2011 and hearing the Appeal Nos. E/1227/2009-SM and E/CO/192/2009-SM(BR) on merits afresh.' 6. The explanation of learned counsel for the appellant that the counsel who had represented the assessee....