Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Cce & St Chandigarh -I vs M/S.Punjab National Bank

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal16 June 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may restore an appeal that was decided ex parte where the non-appearance of the party was for genuine reasons, and where the party's case is covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal in its favour.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066COURT NO. IIIST Misc. Application No. ST/ROA/56280/2014ST Appeal No. ST/60017/2013-ST[SM]CCE & ST  Chandigarh -I ...AppellantVs.M/s.Punjab National Bank RespondentPresent for the appellant: Mr. M. S. Negi, DRPresent for the Respondent Mr. Rakesh Khanna (Advocate)CORAM: HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)Date of Hearing/Decision.16.06.2015

Misc. ORDER NO. __54239___/2015 PER: S. K. MOHANTY The application for restoration of appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking restoration of Appeal No.ST/60017/2013, passed by this Tribunal on 24.09.2014 vide final order No.53859/2014.

2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant, Shri Rakesh Khanna for the respondent, submits that on 04.06.2014, the respondent appeared before Tribunal and the matter was adjourned to 24.07.2014. On the said date since there was no Court, the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2014 and the notice in this regard was communicated to the respondent. Due to some miscommunication, the notice was not handed over by the respondent to the authorized representative, as a result of which the matter could not be argued on the date fixed for hearing. For non-appearance of the respondent on 24.09.2014, the appeal was decided ex-parte in favour of the Revenue appellant. Hence this ROA application has been filed for restoration of the above mentioned appeal. The ld. Chartered Accountant for the respondent submits that the Respondents case, for an earlier period is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 18.06.2013 reported in 2014 (34) STR 278(Tri.-Del.).

3. Considering the fact that the respondent could not appear for hearing due to some genuine reasons and also their case being covered by an earlier decision in their favour by this Bench of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the ROA merits consideration. Thus, the ROA is allowed and the appeal to come up for hearing in due course.

4. The ROA is disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. MOHANTY) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Anita

2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free