2016 (4) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n up together. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants contends that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, by way of remand vide order dated 30.11.2015. He submits that though they had not appeared on 30.11.2015, but they had appeared on earlier occasions when the appeals were posted on a couple of occasions. He therefore, argues that the observation of the Tribunal that as the Respondents are not appearing before the Bench and also not contesting the grounds of appeal of the Revenue on merit is factually incorrect. He further contends that dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution is bad in law. He therefore, submits that the appeals should be restored. He relied upon th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....007. He submits that on earlier occasion, the matter was adjourned at the request of the Respondents. We find that the demand was proposed on the ground of clandestine removal of the goods. The main contention of the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue is that the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the evidences in proper manner. He reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. As the Respondents are not appearing before the Bench and also not contesting the grounds of appeal of the Revenue on merit and it is difficult to proceed in the matter. Hence, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh on the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authorit....