2015 (2) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pointed out by the ld. DR that the issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the department by the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Ind -Swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (S.C.) . 2. Shri Abhishek Jaju , ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that prior to the date of hearing and decision i.e. 23.12.2013, this matter had been listed for hearing on 22.11.2013 and since on that date, there was no court, the matter had been adjourned to 23.12.2013, that there was mistake on his part in noting down the date of next hearing from the Court Master's record, and instead of "23.12.2013", he noted the date as "23.01.2014", as a result of which, he failed to appear before the court o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s reported in 1996 (86) ELT 472 (SC) has held that when there was ex parte disposal of appeal on merits by the Appellate Tribunal, the ex parte order is to be recalled when there was sufficient cause for absence of the party, as the ends of justice require that when a party is unable to appear for no fault of his own, the ex parte order should be set aside and not to do so on the ground of lack of power would be manifest the justice that even if the respondent's non-representation at the time of hearing on 23.12.2013 is attributable to the mistake of their counsel, the Appellant should not suffer, that the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Ferro and Industries Ltd. reported in 2010 (250) ELT 252 (Tribunal-Delhi) has held that it has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on that date, there was no court, the same had been adjourned to 23.12.2013 and also a notice of hearing in this regard had been issued to the party. Shri A. Jaju , ld. Counsel for the respondent, concedes that he had noted down the date for next of hearing from the court master but by mastak he noted down the date as "23.01.2014" instead of the actual date i.e." 23.12.2013", as a result of which, he did not appear on 23.12.2013. In any case, in this case, the failure to appear at the time of hearing on 23.12.2013 is attributable to the respondent's counsel. The question arises as to whether in these circumstances, the Final Order No.23.12.2013 should be recalled and the appeal should be restored. 6. Though at the time of hearing o....