Manu Yantralaya (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Rajasthan High Court)
CESTAT Cannot Dismiss Appeal for Non-Appearance
Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that had dismissed an appeal filed by Manu Yantralaya (P) Ltd. for non-prosecution. The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the Tribunal is obligated to decide appeals on their merits and cannot dismiss them solely due to the appellant’s or their counsel’s absence.
The case, stemming from a central excise duty demand of Rs. 13,81,755 raised against Manu Yantralaya, had a protracted journey through the tax hierarchy. The demand was initially confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in an Order-in-Original dated November 6, 2009, which also imposed equivalent penalty and interest. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on March 30, 2010.
Aggrieved by these orders, Manu Yantralaya filed an appeal before the CESTAT in 2010. However, in a proceeding on December 22, 2016, held after a gap of six years, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal in non-prosecution/in default due to the appellant’s absence.
Manu Yantralaya then filed an application for the restoration of their appeal, seeking to recall the CESTAT’s dismissal order. They argued that the non-appearance was not intentional, citing that their counsel was based in Jaipur while the Tribunal’s bench was in Delhi, and alternative arrangements could not be made at short notice. They also invoked a Supreme Court judgment, Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2014 (310) ELT 209 (SC)], which they contended, prohibited the Tribunal from dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering the merits.
