TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued to the appellant. Nobody has been appearing for the appellant in the hearings since 23.9.2025 when this appeal was first listed. On 22.5.2026, last opportunity was granted to the appellant and the matter was directed to be listed today. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant even today. 2. Supreme Court held in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [2014 (310) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)] that if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, this tribunal should decide the matter on merits. Relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced below: "11. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the Act enjoins upon the Tribunal to pass order on the appeal confirmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT, the word "thereon" in Section 33(4) restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 of interrogation : "How can it be said that the Tribunal should seek for advice on a question which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Period Gross receipts as per IT Returns (Rs.) 2014-15 10,01,32,729 2015-16 8,35,22,865 2016-17 6,41,07,678 2017-18 (upto 30.6.2017) (not as per IT returns as the return had not been filed) 1,81,91,185 Total 26,59,22,065 5. Accordingly, the SCN proposed demand of service of Rs. 3,62,51,923 under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [Act] along with interest under section 75 of the Act and proposed to impose penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 6. In the impugned order, however, the Commissioner only confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 1,26,07,164/- with interest and penalties. 7. The appellant contested part of this confirmed demand only, mainly on the ground that cu....