A.K.Yog, Dilip Gupta, JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Sri Giridhar Gopal Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of sole contesting respondent (Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur). Perused impugned judgment and order dated 11-3-2005 (served on the appellant on 11-4-2005) giving rise to the present Central Excise Appeal No. 208 of 2005 filed by the appellant/M/S Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur.
(2.) The substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal (added by way of amendment under our order passed today) are : 'Whether the tribunal has committed an error of law in rejecting the adjournment application filed by the counsel for the Appellant on the ground that matter has been adjourned earlier also from time to time without applying its mind to the averments made in the adjournment application filed on the date fixed ?' and again 'whether the tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter as the counsel for the appellant was unwell and had moved an application for the same more so when the said application was not opposed by the opposite party?'
(3.) We reframe-the substantial question of law as follows: 'Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi was justified and acted in accordance with law in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 11-3-2005 behind the back of the appellant (respondent before the Tribunal) without considering the genuineness of the ground mentioned for seeking adjournment on the date in question and having proceeded behind the back of the appellant only on the ground that earlier also the matter was got adjourned from time to time either for non-appearance of the counsel or on the request of the appellant?';