TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in dismissing an appeal for non prosecution by impugned Exparte order dated 27.1.2015 as well as order dated 8.3.2013 signed on 11.3.2013 contrary to Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 read with Section 35C of CEA, 1944? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal when issue is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balaji Steel Rerolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs, 2014 (310) ELT 209 (S.C.) and judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Super Label Mfg. CO. Vs. Union of India, 2015 (32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation. 5. So far as an appeal against order dated 27th January, 2015 rejecting the application for restoration of a dismissed appeal is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act. This as it is not an order passed in appeal by the Tribunal but an order passed on an application after the order has been already passed in appeal. The non maintainability of an appeal from an order on recall / restoration stands concluded by the decisions of this Court in Union of India Vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd. 2015(322) E.L.T. 662 and Chem Amit Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2005 (272) ITR 397. Thus, the remedy if any against the impugned order dated 27th January, 2015 is not an appeal under Section 35G of the Act. Therefore, in this appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not appear at the time of the hearing though briefed. In the above view, it is submitted that the appellant should not be penalized for the fault of his advocate. In support, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1400. The question as proposed in respect of the order dated 27th January, 2015 i.e. rejecting the restoration application, thus outside the scope of the appeal. Thus, not entertained. 9. In any case, the decision of the Apex Court in Rafiq (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that there is no evidence produced before the Tribunal that the Chartered Accountant / Advocate who was briefed did not appear on the date w....