1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO.62 OF 2010 Crompton Greaves Ltd., S-6 Division, Plot No. D-2, M.I.D.C. Waluj, Aurangabad - 431 136. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. N-5, Town Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad - 431 003. ...RESPONDENT ... Shri. Jimmy F. Pochkhanawalla, Senior Advocate with Shri. Aditya Chitale and Shri. M.M. Joshi, Advocates for the appellant. Shri. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing 2 for respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The appellant challenges the order dated 22-12-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zone Bench at Mumbai in Excise Appeal No. 658 of 2006. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellant had engaged a Lawyer to represent the case before CESTAT, West Zone Bench at Mumbai. The Counsel, for unavoidable reasons, could not remain present before the Tribunal on the effective date of hearing. It was further submitted that as the appellant could not get opportunity of putting up their case, prejudice is caused to them. 3. We heard Shri. Alok Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Department. 4. In the facts of the case and in view of the submissions advanced, we find that opportunity of hearing which could not be availed of by the 3 appellant before the Tribunal, could be extended, which would provide fair opportunity to the party concerned. Instead of dilating much as to the reasons for non representation on the part of the appellant before the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that to avoid prejudice to the party concerned and in the interest of justice, an opportunity could be provided to the appellant to put up its case before the Tribunal. This exercise, in the facts of the present case, and in our view, would not prejudice the respondent. With this view, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. 5. The impugned order dated 22-12-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zone Bench at Mumbai in Excise Appeal No. 658 of 2006 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the Tribunal. We direct the Tribunal to dispose of the tax appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of writ of this Court. All issues are 4 kept open. 6. The appeal is partly allowed, in the above terms. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/AUG10/ta62.10