2016 (2) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. Advocate submits that there was representation for adjournment on 16.12.2014. On that day Junior counsel attached to their office seek adjournment on the ground that the counsel on record had on a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. He further submits that the non-appearance on that date was neither wilful nor wanton and pleads for restoration of their appeals. He relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CCE - 2014 (310) ELT 209 (S.C.) in support of his argument. He further submits that appeal No. C/211/2006 on identical issue is posted for hearing on 27.10.2015 and these appeals may also be linked with the above appeal for hearing on 27.10.2015. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arte." Considering the aforesaid provisions, this Court held as under :- "7. The scheme of the provisions of the Act relating to the Appellate Tribunal apparently is that it has to dispose of an appeal by making such orders as it thinks fit on the merits. It follows from the language of Section 33(4) and in particular the use of the word thereon that the Tribunal has to go into the correctness or otherwise of the points decided by the departmental authorities in the light of the submissions made by the appellant. This can only be done by giving a decision on the merits on questions of fact and law and not by merely disposing of the appeal on the ground that the party concerned has failed to appear. As observed in Hukumch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. It was laid down as far back as the year 1953 by S.R. Das, J. (as he then was) in CIT, v. Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and of the High Court is conditional on there being an order by the Appellate Tribunal which may be said to be one under Section 33(4) and a question of law arising out of such an order. The Special Bench, in the present case, while examining this aspect quite appositely referred to the observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. indicating the necessity of the disposal of the appeal on the merits by the Appellate Tribunal. This is how the learned judge had put the matter in the form o....