News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is ultra vires

AUGUST 23, 2022

By R K Singh

RECENTLY, CESTAT summarily dismissed the appeal of Dujodwala Paper Chemicals - 2022-TIOL-736-CESTAT-MUM for non-appearance by the appellant in person or through an advocate, observing as under:

"In view of the above provisions, this appeal is liable for dismissal on the ground of default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982."

2. Such summary dismissal is held to be unsustainable by Supreme Court. In the case of Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd - 2014-TIOL-92-SC-CX-LB, Supreme Court held that CESTAT ought to issue speaking order on merits even if the appellant does not appear; relevant part of para 13 of the said Supreme Court judgement is reproduced below:

"13. ……… 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…… "

3. Thus the referred CESTAT order is simply unsustainable.

4. At this juncture, for the sake of ready reference, the said rule 20 is reproduced below:

Rule 20. Action on appeal for appellant's default. - Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits:

Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal."

As is evident, in the event of default in appearance on the part of the appellant, the said rule allows CESTAT the discretion to summarily dismiss the appeal for default.

5. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills (supra), the department specifically cited the said rule 20 to justify summary dismissal by CESTAT. Supreme Court after taking due notice of the said rule and after considering the relevant precedents unequivocally held to the effect that even in case of default on the part of the appellant (i.e. even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing),CESTAT ought to decide the appeal on merits.

6. Thus, the said rule to the extent it allows CESTAT discretion to summarily dismiss an appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant or its counsel is clearly ultra vires the said decision of the Larger Bench of Supreme Court.

7. As the said decision of Supreme Court was rendered about eight years ago, it is surprising that the said (ultra vires) rule continues to exist unamended.

[The author is former Member CESTAT and Sr. Partner, TLC Legal Advocates. The views expressed are strictly personal.]

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Views on the article Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules is ultra vires

I am in full agreement with views expressed by Mr Singh in this article. Availing the opportunity of personal hearing is optional on the part of the parties but to give an opportunity of personal hearing is mandatary on the part of Tribunal or any other Court. It is in compliance to the principles of natural justice and no rule/statutory provision is required to support this. Kishori Lal

Posted by cestat cestat
 

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023