Bench Unavailable on Hearing Date; CESTAT Must Issue Fresh Notice: Allahabad HC

Sampark Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (Allahabad High Court)

Summary: The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, against the order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal No.71262 of 2018 dated 13.11.2025, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal ex parte. The appeal raised the legal question whether, when no bench was sitting on 06.05.2025, the Tribunal could decide the appeal on 15.07.2025 without issuing notice of the latter date to the appellant. According to the Tribunal, the matter had been listed on several dates, including 12.03.2025 and 15.07.2025, and the appellant had not appeared on those dates. The appellant, however, stated that it had participated in the proceedings from 10.07.2019 to 12.03.2025 and that an order passed in its presence on 12.03.2025 had fixed 06.05.2025 as the next date. On 06.05.2025, no two-member bench was constituted in view of Order No.46 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025. The High Court considered Public Notice No.3 of 2019 dated 18.02.2019 and Rules 18(1) and 24 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. It held that the Public Notice contemplated cases where orders fixing adjourned dates were uploaded, whereas no order was passed or uploaded on 06.05.2025 fixing the subsequent date. The Court rejected the Revenue’s submission that the appellant could have ascertained the next date from the weekly cause list, observing that there was no enabling Rule or practice requiring such extreme diligence. Since no hearing took place on 06.05.2025 and the matter could not be treated as adjourned under Rule 24, the Tribunal was required to issue fresh notice under Rule 18. As this was not done, the Tribunal’s order was passed without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing. The High Court answered the question of law in the negative, set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 13.11.2025 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order. It clarified that it had not considered the manner of service of notice under Rule 18.

Background of the Appeal

The present appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. It arose from the order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, in Appeal No.71262 of 2018, dated 13.11.2025.

By that order, a two-member bench of the Tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal ex parte.

Since the issue involved a pure question of law and the parties had already been put to notice, the High Court proceeded to decide the appeal at the fresh stage with the consent of the parties.

Question of Law Before the High Court

The appeal was pressed on the following question of law:

Whether in absence of any bench sitting on 06.05.2025- when the case was last listed for hearing (with prior notice to the appellant), the said appeal could have been decided on the next date i.e. on 15.07.2025, for which date, no notice had been issued to the appellant.

Listing History of the Tribunal Appeal

According to the Tribunal, the case was listed on the following dates:

i. 10.07.2019

ii. 30.10.2019

iii. 08.01.2020

iv. 03.02.2020

v. 30.08.2023

vi. 11.10.2023

vii. 22.11.2023

viii. 08.01.2024

ix. 26.02.2024

x. 02.07.2024

xi. 21.08.2024

xii. 09.10.2024

xiii. 22.11.2024

xiv. 08.01.2025

xv. 12.03.2025

xvi. 15.07.2025

The Tribunal recorded that the appellant did not appear on any of those dates. It consequently heard the appeal ex parte against the appellant on 15.07.2025 and passed its order.

Appellant’s Position on the Date Fixed for Hearing

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that, from 10.07.2019 to 12.03.2025, the appellant had participated in the proceedings. It was stated that the appellant may have sought adjournment on certain dates, including 12.03.2025.

On 12.03.2025, an order was passed in the appellant’s presence fixing 06.05.2025 as the next date.

Thereafter, on 06.05.2025, the two-member bench of the Tribunal could not be formed in view of Order No.46 of 2025 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. For the period from 03.03.2025 to 30.05.2025, only single-member benches had been constituted by way of regular roster.

Order Passed on 12.03.2025

The High Court noted the statement made at the Bar that a Special Bench had been constituted on 12.03.2025 and the date of 06.05.2025 had accordingly been fixed.

The order passed by the Special Bench dated 12.03.2025 stated:

“There have been several adjournments on the request of the appellant. It is very old appeal of 2018, however, as a letter has been circulated, as last opportunity we list the appeal on 06.05.2025. It is made clear that the appeal shall be decided on merits on the next date of hearing even in the absence of the appellant.”

It was further stated at the Bar that no bench was formed on 06.05.2025 due to Order No.46 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025, which constituted single-member benches only. Consequently, there was no specially constituted bench on 06.05.2025 to hear the appellant’s appeal.

Public Notice No.3 of 2019 and Tribunal Hearing Notices

The High Court examined whether Public Notice No.3 of 2019 dated 18.02.2019 provided a procedure under which the Tribunal was not obligated to communicate the next date of hearing after 06.05.2025.

The Public Notice stated that the practice of issuing adjournment notices was dispensed with in view of the uploading of Daily Orders on the website. Parties could ascertain the status of listed matters through the “Daily Orders” or “Court Proceedings” links. Orders under detailed dictation would be uploaded separately under the “Final Order” link.

It further stated that parties could take notice of adjourned dates from the website and attend the hearing without further notice from the Tribunal. Where the Bench did not sit for any reason, the adjourned dates of listed matters would be uploaded in the “Court Proceedings”.

High Court’s View on the Scope of the Public Notice

The High Court observed that the Public Notice provided that fresh notice was no longer required since orders fixing dates were uploaded by the Tribunal.

The Court noted that, earlier, the Tribunal had followed a practice of issuing fresh notices even for dates when adjournments were granted on the request of parties. That practice was modified after orders of the Tribunal were required to be uploaded on the website, enabling parties to ascertain the correct status of proceedings by perusing the latest orders.

The Court noted, by way of example, that the adjournment granted to the appellant on 12.03.2025 by a judicial order passed by a two-member bench could be found uploaded on the Tribunal’s website.

TaxGuru has also discussed the procedure for hearing of appeals before CESTAT, including Rule 18 concerning notification of the date and place of hearing and the procedural rules governing appearance and hearing before the Tribunal.

No Order Was Passed on 06.05.2025

The High Court distinguished the situation where a judicial order fixing a subsequent date had been passed and uploaded from the circumstances existing on 06.05.2025.

The Court observed that the issue was whether notice was required after 06.05.2025 when no order came to be passed by the Tribunal. Since a two-member bench had not been constituted on that date, no order was passed or uploaded fixing the next date in the proceedings.

The High Court therefore found it difficult to accept the submission advanced by learned counsel for the Revenue that, even in those circumstances, the appellant could ascertain the correct status of the proceedings by perusing the daily cause list uploaded every Thursday.

The Court observed that although such a course might have been adopted and information might thereby have been obtained when the case was to be listed next, there was no notice issued by the Tribunal of the next date fixed in the proceedings and no enabling Rule or practice requiring such extreme diligence on the part of the appellant.

Rules 18 and 24 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules

The High Court considered Rule 18(1) and Rule 24 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

“Rule 18 – Date and place of hearing to be notified.- (1)The Tribunal shall notify to the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or application.

Rule 24- Adjournment of appeal. – The Tribunal may, on such terms as it thinks fit and at any stage of the proceedings, adjourn the hearing of the appeal.”

The Court held that the Rules made it clear that, in the first place, the Tribunal was obligated to notify the parties of the date and place of hearing of the appeal.

Since no judicial order had been passed on 06.05.2025, the next or last date of 15.07.2025 was not notified to the appellant through a judicial order or in the course of hearing in the appeal proceedings.

The Court further held that, to the extent Order No.46 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025 had been issued by the Deputy Registrar, the date of 15.07.2025 could not be notified to the appellant in the manner required under Public Notice No.3 of 2019.

No Adjournment Took Place on 06.05.2025

The High Court held that, since there was no sitting of the two-member bench on 06.05.2025, the fact that no hearing took place on that date could not be doubted.

It also held that the event could not be described as an adjournment on that date in terms of Rule 24. The hearing procedure had instead been disrupted due to the non-availability of the two-member bench of the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal was obligated to issue a fresh notice to the appellant in terms of Rule 18, intimating the next date and place of hearing. The Court found that this had not been done.

Tribunal Order Passed Without Due Opportunity of Hearing

In view of the above, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s order had been passed without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing, to which the appellant was otherwise entitled in law.

The Court accordingly held that the appeal succeeded and was allowed. The question of law was answered in the negative, in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.

Order Set Aside and Matter Remitted

The order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal No.71262 of 2018 dated 13.11.2025 was set aside.

The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order.

Clarification on Service of Notice

The High Court clarified that it had not considered the manner of service of notice under Rule 18 of the Rules, since it was not the case of the Revenue that the notice had been served through any mode.

Final Decision

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and answered the question of law in the negative, in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.

The Tribunal’s order dated 13.11.2025 in Appeal No.71262 of 2018 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order.

The Court’s decision rested on its finding that, after no two-member bench sat on 06.05.2025 and no order fixing the subsequent hearing date was passed or uploaded, the Tribunal was required to issue fresh notice under Rule 18 before proceeding with the appeal.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Since the issue involves pure legal question of law and parties have already been put to notice, at present, appeal is being decided at the fresh stage with the consent of parties.

2. Heard Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, arising from the order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (in short, “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.71262 of 2018, dated 13.11.2025. By that order, a two-member bench of the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the appellant, ex parte.

4. The present appeal has been pressed on the following question of law:

Whether in absence of any bench sitting on 06.05.2025- when the case was last listed for hearing (with prior notice to the appellant), the said appeal could have been decided on the next date i.e. on 15.07.2025, for which date, no notice had been issued to the appellant.

5. Merit issues apart, according to the Tribunal, the case was listed on the dates: 10.07.2019, 30.10.2019, 08.01.2020, 03.02.2020, 30.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 22.11.2023, 08.01.2024, 26.02.2024, 02.07.2024, 21.08.2024, 09.10.2024, 22.11.2024, 08.01.2025, 12.03.2025 and 15.07.2025. The appellant did not appear on any of those dates. Therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte against the appellant on 15.07.2025, and order has been passed thereon.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant states, from 10.07.2019 to 12.03.2025, the appellant had participated in the proceedings. However, he may have sought adjournment on certain dates including 12.03.2025. On that date, order was passed in his presence, fixing the next date 06.05.2025. Thereafter, on 06.05.2025, two-member bench of the Tribunal could not be formed in view of Order No.46 of 2025 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Thereby, for the period 03.03.2025 to 30.05.2025, only single-member benches were constituted by way of regular roster.

7. In that light, it has been stated at the Bar, that on 12.03.2025, a Special Bench had been constituted and thus, the date came to be fixed for 06.05.2025. The order passed by that Special Bench dated 12.03.2025 reads as under:

“There have been several adjournments on the request of the appellant. It is very old appeal of 2018, however, as a letter has been circulated, as last opportunity we list the appeal on 06.05.2025. It is made clear that the appeal shall be decided on merits on the next date of hearing even in the absence of the appellant. “

8. Again, it is stated at the bar that no bench was formed on 06.05.2025, occasioned by Order No.46 of 2025, dated 25.02.2025 constituting a single-member benches only. On that date, there was no specially constituted bench, to hear the appeal filed by the appellant.

9. In such facts, issue arises if Public Notice No.3 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 offers any procedure whereunder the Tribunal may not be obligated to communicate to the appellant the next date of hearing, fixed after the date 06.05.2025. For ready reference, the Public Notice No.3 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 reads as below:

Public Notice No.3/2019

The practice of issuing adjournment notice is dispensed herewith in view of the uploading of Daily Orders on the website. All concerned may find the status of listed matters from the website www.cestatnew.gov.in using the hyperlink “Daily Orders” or “Court Proceedings”. Orders under detailed dictation will be uploaded separately and will be available in the link “Final Order”. The parties may take notice of the adjourned dates from the website and attend the hearing without further notice from the Tribunal. In case the Bench does not sit for any reason the adjourned dates of the listed matters will be uploaded in the “Court Proceedings”.

10. The said public notice only provides that now, no fresh notice is required to be issued since orders (fixing such dates), are uploaded by the Tribunal. Earlier, it was a practice with the Tribunal to issue fresh notices, even for dates when adjournments were granted on the request of the parties. We are mindful that at that stage, sometimes, adjournments were granted against applications, even in the absence of the parties and/or their authorised representatives. While that practice was common and remained applicable for a long duration of time, modification (to that practice) was made after all orders of the Tribunal were required to be uploaded on the website. Thereby, any party to a proceeding, has been enabled to visit the website of the Tribunal and ascertain the correct status of the proceedings by perusing the latest orders passed in those proceedings.

11. By way of an example, we may note, to the extent adjournment was granted to the appellant on 12.03.2025, by a judicial order passed by a two-Member bench of the Tribunal, that order may be found uploaded on the website of the Tribunal

12. However, the issue here is not about the dates when a judicial order may have been passed and uploaded, but the issue is if no notice was required after the subsequent date 06.05.2025, when no order came to be passed by the Tribunal. As noted above, on that date, a two-Member bench of the Tribunal was not constituted. Therefore, no order came to be passed or uploaded- fixing next date in the proceedings.

13. In such circumstances, we find it difficult to accept the submission advanced by learned counsel for the revenue that even in that circumstance, the appellant was enabled to find out the correct status of the proceedings by perusing the daily cause list which is uploaded every Thursday. Though it cannot be denied that such course may have been adopted and thereby information may have been gained by the appellant when the case was to be listed next, at the same time, it also cannot be denied that there was no notice issued by the Tribunal of the next date fixed in the proceedings and there is no enabling Rule or practice that may commend such extreme diligence on part of the appellant.

14. Consequently, neither there was any order displaying the order-sheet of the case- disclosing to the appellant in advance, the next date fixed in the appeal, after the date 06.05.2025, nor any notice was issued for the subsequent date i.e. 15.07.2025.

15. Rule 18(1) and 24 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (in short, “the Rules”) read as below:

“Rule 18 – Date and place of hearing to be notified.- (1)The Tribunal shall notify to the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or application.

Rule 24- Adjournment of appeal. – The Tribunal may, on such terms as it thinks fit and at any stage of the proceedings, adjourn the hearing of the appeal.”

16. Perusal of the above Rules makes it clear that in the first place, the Tribunal was obligated to notify the date and place of hearing of the appeal. To the extent there was no judicial order passed on 06.05.2025, the next/last date 15.07.2025 was not notified to the appellant through judicial order or in the course of hearing in the appeal proceedings. Further, to the extent the Order No.46 of 2025, dated 25.02.2025, was issued by the Deputy Registrar, the date 15.07.2025 could not be notified to the appellant in the manner required vide Public Notice No.3/2019, dated 18.02.2019.

17. Undeniably, since there was no sitting of two-member bench on 06.05.2025, the fact that no hearing took place on that date, cannot be doubted. It also cannot be described that hearing was adjourned, on that date in terms of Rule 24 noticed above. To that extent, the hearing procedure was disrupted occasioned by non-availability of the two-Member bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, it was obligated to issue a fresh notice to the appellant in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules, intimating the next date and place of hearing. That was not done.

18. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal has been passed without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing, to which it was otherwise entitled in law.

19. Thus the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.

20. The order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal No.71262 of 2018, dated 13.11.2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order.

21. We make it clear that we have not considered the manner of service of notice under Rule 18 of the Rules, inasmuch as, it is not the case of the revenue that the notice was served through any mode.