Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Wearwell Tyres & Tubes Indus. Pvt. ... vs Commissioner, Customs & Central ... on 20 March, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-Excise (DB)
Appeal No. E./4630/2004-Ex. &
Appeal No.E/427/2005-Ex.
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.433-434/CE/BPL/2004 dated 11.06.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal].
Date of Hearing:20.03.2009
Date of decision:20.03.2009
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President
Honble Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Wearwell Tyres & Tubes Indus. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal Respondent
Present for the Appellant : None
Present for the Respondent : Shri.B.S.Suhag, D.R.
Coram: Honble Mr.Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
ORAL ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:20.03.2009
PER: JUSTICE R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR None is present for the appellant. Shri B.S.Suhag, Departmental Representative is present for the respondent. A letter is placed on record dated 19th Feb., 2009 stating that the matter fixed on 20th March 2009 should be adjourned on the ground that the Advocate appearing for the appellant has to appear before the Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal in another matter for final hearing of the matter before him. Advocate is engaged before some other authority on the day when the matter is fixed before the Tribunal, cannot be a justification for adjournment. It was necessary for the concerned Advocate to make necessary arrangement, when he has to appear for the appellant on this date. Merely sending an application is not suffice. Hence the application for adjournment is rejected and in the absence of appellant or his representative, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance.
(JUSTICE R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR) PRESIDENT (RAKESH KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Anita