2017 (10) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. The question is whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ("Appellate Tribunal") was right in deciding the Appeal preferred by the Appellant on merits in absence of the Appellant or its Advocate especially in the light of the facts pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant company was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 4,81,658/- was also imposed. However, penalty under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not imposed on the said Mr. Udaykumar Vinzanekar. An Appeal preferred by the Appellant Company against the order dated 25th January 2002 was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by passing an order of remand. After remand, a de-novo adjudication was m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellate Tribunal, the manufacturing activities in the factory at Mumbai were also discontinued. He pointed out the averments made in the paragraph 28 of Memorandum of Appeal and stated that the Appellant company did not receive notice or intimation of the date fixed for hearing of the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The prayer of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nds of challenge incorporated in the Memorandum of Appeal filed before it and in any case, there are no elaborate findings recorded in the impugned judgment. The Appellate Tribunal had noted that the Appeal was listed before it on 10th February 2014, 25th March 2014 and 29th April 2014, when none appeared for the Appellant. The Memorandum of Appeal discloses that the Advocate appointed by the Appe....