V COMMON ORDER - 10, 11 and 12 # % 04.05.2011 . Present: Mr. Naveen Mullick, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Prabjyoti Kumar Chadha, Standing Counsel with Mr. D.S. Chadha, Advocate for the respondent. + CEAC No. 5/2011 CEAC No. 6/2011 CEAC No. 7/2011 * These appeals are filed againstthe orders dated 12^^ May, 2010, passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT')whereby appeals ofthese appellants have been dismissed. Mr. Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has drawn our attention to the fact that the appeals were heard and decided ex-parte, i.e., in the absence of the appellants herein as nobody could appear .on behalf of the appellant on ll''" May, 2010. This is so recorded in the impugned order as well. The submission. of Mr. Mullick is that a day before he had undergone a surgery and he had moved an application for adjournment on the same day, i.e., 11'*^ May, 2010 on the aforesaid personal ground making specific request that the matter may kindly be fixed after 2""^ July, 2010. Since the application was moved a day before, it is possible that the same could not be brought on record of that case by the Registry and because of the said reason the.Tribunal was not able to note the reason for absence of learned counsel for the appellant. Under these circumstances,, learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the aforesaid averment, namely, that the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified / ..» .ppiWon«... ». »™ "• ™~™' tnat it was filed on II'" May, 2010. Even otherwise,the aforesa.d avermentis supportedby an affidavitfiled alongwiththis application. we have aiso heardlearnedcounselfor the partiesfor son.et,me to havethe flavourof the disputebetweenthe parties. We are of the opinionthat in amatterlike this, the appellanthad an arguablecase and thereforenon-appearanceof learned counsel beforethe CESTAT was serious prejudiceto their interestswhen appellantshave been ahle to show sufficientcause of non-appearanceon 12." May, 2010. on this groundalone we set aside the Impugnedorder passed by the Tribunal. We make it clearthatwe have not made any observationsor ,emar.son the meritsof the case. It would be for theTribunalto give aview aftergiving hearingto the parties. These appeals are allowed on the aforesaidterms without any , order as to costs. The partiesshall appearbeforethe Tribunalon 4'" August, 2011. A/K. SIKRl, J. M.L. MEHTA, J. may 4, 2011