Ashok Construction Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this application is for rectification of the tribuna's order disposing of the appeal filed by ashok contruction company 3. the first contention appears to be that the tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter. the tribunal had noted that the appellant was absent or unrepresented at the hearing. it is contended that adjournment was sought by means of a fax message which was sent to some acquaintance of the appellant(since it could not be sent through tribunal's fax machine, which it is claimed was not working). the photocopy of the document said to have been sent by the proprietor of the appellant seeking adjournment of the matter is cited in support.this is a copy of a letter or a fax message. the registry has endorsed that no request for adjournment was received, as has the court clerk.the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of the claim that the request for adjournment was delivered to the registry.4. it is next contended that in the order passed on the miscellaneous application of the applicant for modifying the tribunal's stay order the tribunal had said that to show that if all the original gate passes had been produced the appeal could be considered for remand. this sentence is relied upon to say that remand has not been considered in the tribunal's final order. the observations by a bench, and that too, in an interim order, did not give the appellant any right for remand.that had to be decided while disposing of the appeal.5. the next contention is that the view expressed in the tribunal's order that there is nothing to substantiate of the claim that the traders endorsed the gate passes issued in favour of the appellant is incorrect. it is claimed that the copies of these gate passes containing endorsement has been produced.6. what has been produced, is the photocopies of the plant copy of the gate passes, which contained the endorsement of transfer. the tribunal had found such copies not to be valid document for taking credit. if the plant copy is not a valid document for taking credit, putting an endorsement on it does not render it so valid for that purpose.7. the tribunal's refusal to accept the claim that the assistant collector's order is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the board for adjudication is next questioned. the tribunal had considered the claim, and given a reasonable finding for not accepting it. the possibility that the finding might be wrong does not render it a mistake apparent on the record.

Judgment:
1. This application is for rectification of the Tribuna's order disposing of the appeal filed by Ashok Contruction Company 3. The first contention appears to be that the Tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter. The Tribunal had noted that the appellant was absent or unrepresented at the hearing. It is contended that adjournment was sought by means of a fax message which was sent to some acquaintance of the appellant(since it could not be sent through Tribunal's fax machine, which it is claimed was not working). The photocopy of the document said to have been sent by the proprietor of the appellant seeking adjournment of the matter is cited in support.

This is a copy of a letter or a fax message. The registry has endorsed that no request for adjournment was received, as has the court clerk.

The appellant has not produced any evidence in support of the claim that the request for adjournment was delivered to the registry.

4. It is next contended that in the order passed on the miscellaneous application of the applicant for modifying the Tribunal's stay order the Tribunal had said that to show that if all the original gate passes had been produced the appeal could be considered for remand. This sentence is relied upon to say that remand has not been considered in the Tribunal's final order. The observations by a bench, and that too, in an interim order, did not give the appellant any right for remand.

That had to be decided while disposing of the appeal.

5. The next contention is that the view expressed in the Tribunal's order that there is nothing to substantiate of the claim that the traders endorsed the gate passes issued in favour of the appellant is incorrect. It is claimed that the copies of these gate passes containing endorsement has been produced.

6. What has been produced, is the photocopies of the plant copy of the gate passes, which contained the endorsement of transfer. The Tribunal had found such copies not to be valid document for taking credit. If the plant copy is not a valid document for taking credit, putting an endorsement on it does not render it so valid for that purpose.

7. The Tribunal's refusal to accept the claim that the Assistant Collector's order is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Board for adjudication is next questioned. The Tribunal had considered the claim, and given a reasonable finding for not accepting it. The possibility that the finding might be wrong does not render it a mistake apparent on the record.