2019 (8) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order dated 18 November 2016 allowed the Revenue's appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act) on merits and the impugned order dated 25 May 2018 rejected the petitioner's Misc. Application for recall/rectification of the order dated 18 November 2016. Both the impugned orders were admittedly passed without hearing the petitioner. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed a refund of Rs. 45 lakhs in cash to it. Being aggrieved with the above order the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal bearing Appeal no. E/3318 of 2006. This Appeal was heard on 18 November 2016 and allowed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the earlier address of the petitioner and not to the present/current address of the petitioner. In the application for recall/rectification, the petitioner has specifically stated that no notice of hearing was ever received by the petitioner as it appears that the notice was sent at the old address of the petitioner and the new address was specifically stated therein. The application for recall/rectification was supported by an affidavit of the petitioners' Director. No notice was being served upon the petitioner as is evident from the envelope containing notice of hearing sent by the registry of the Tribunal bearing the old address of the petitioner was received back with endorsement "left address". In spite of the above, the Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2018 have been passed in the absence of the petitioner. This non-representation of the petitioner undisputedly was because notice of hearing issued by the registry of the Tribunal was sent to the old address and not the correct address. Thus, the petitioner had no notice of the fact that the Revenue's appeal was scheduled for hearing on 18 November 2016. Therefore, unrepresented. This resulted in Tribunal passing the impugned order dated 18 November 2016 allowing the Revenue's appeal without having served any notice of hearing upon the petitioner. This only because the notice was served at an incorrect address, more particularly when the Revenue served the recovery notice, consequent to the order dated 18 November 2018 at the correct addres....