SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 804

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10265 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 8738 OF 2014)
Decided on: 14-11-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv.
For Respondent: Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power 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.

Headnote:Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35C r/w Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – Tribunal may confirm, modify or annul the order under appeal or may remand the matter – However, it has no power 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. (Para 11, 13)

       (1969) 1 SCC 591 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.

       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.

       The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order 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 appeal filed by appellant was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Tribunal has no power 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.

       Result: Appeal allowed with cost.

       

Judgment

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) Leave granted

2) The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.

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.

4) Against the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

5) Heard Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

6) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the appellant was not present before the Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing, it could not have been dismissed for want of prosecution as Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short ‘the Act’) enjoins upon the Tribunal to pass orders thereon as it thinks fit, that is, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as it may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. Thus, there is no power vested in the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution even if the appellant therein has not appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

7) He further submitted that Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (in short ‘the Rules’) cannot be resorted to as the Section itself does not give power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

8) Learned senior counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that under Rule 20 of the Rules, the Tribunal has been given the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution if the appellant does not appear, and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court calls for no interference.

9) Section 35C(1) of the Act which deals with the powers of the Tribunal reads as under:-

“35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.—(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary.”

10) Rule 20 of the Rules which gives a power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default in case the appellant does not appear when the appe















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top