Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs C.C.E.& Customs

3) The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hot Re-rolled products. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, vide order dated 20.07.1999, re-fixed the annual capacity of production and duty liability of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2002, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs with a direction to determine the capacity of production in accordance with law after hearing the appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, once again affirmed the order dated 20.07.1999. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 14.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of the Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad which was placed for hearing on 22.08.2012. On the very said date, the appellant as also his counsel were not present. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The restoration application was also dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad being Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2013. The High Court, by order dated 18.01.2014, dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

11) From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the Act enjoins upon the Tribunal to pass order on the appeal confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may remand the matter. It does not give any power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution in case the appellant is not present when the appeal is taken up for hearing.

13) Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, as the two provisions are similar, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The High Court also erred in law in upholding the order of the Tribunal.

14) We, therefore, set aside the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and also the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.

15) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be payable by the Respondent.

NOVEMBER 14, 2014.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8738/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/01/2014 in CEA No. 14/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad) BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Petitioner(s) VERSUS C.C.E.& CUSTOMS Respondent(s) Date : 14/11/2014 This petition was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be payable by the Respondent in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)