The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed two excise appeals filed against Central Excise decisions due to the appellant's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the matter, relying on a Bombay High Court precedent.
Appeals dismissed for want of non-prosecution with liberty sought to restore upon adequate explanation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 | P a g e
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 02
Excise Appeal No. 12138 of 2014
[Arising Out Of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-014-2014-15 D ated- 26/05/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-V), Central Excise-AHMEDABAD]
Bodal Chemicals Ltd …..Appellant Plot No. 2102, Phase-iii, Gidc, Vatva, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT
VERSUS
C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-i …..Respondent
C. Ex Bhavan, Nr Panjrapole & Polytechnic, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380015
WITH
Excise Appeal No. 10610 of 2015
[Arising Out Of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-103-2014-15 D ated- 13/03/2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Central Excise-AHMEDABAD]
Bodal Chemicals Ltd …..Appellant Unit-i Plot No 110, Phase-ii G I D C Vatva AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT
VERSUS
C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-i …..Respondent C. Ex Bhavan, Nr Panjrapole & Polytechnic, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380015
APPEARANCE:
None appeared for the Appellant Shri. A R Kanani, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )
Final Order No. 10036-10037/2026_
DATE OF HEARING:21.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION:21.01.2026
SOMESH ARORA
None has appeared nor is there any adjournment request on record. Matter has come up seven times earlier on 25.09.2024, 05.11.2024, 05.12.2024, 20.01.2025, 23.07.2025, 29.08.2025 and 04.11.2025 and this is the eighth time. It appears that the party is not interested to pursue the appeal. Therefore, as per the inherent power vested in this Tribunal as noted
2 | P a g e E / 1 2 1 3 8 / 2 0 1 4 & E / 1 0 6 1 0 / 2 0 1 5 - D B
in 2009 (244) ELT 497 (Bom.) CHEMIPOL Vs. UNION OF INDIA, the present appeal has become liable to be dismissed for want of non-prosecution. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is being granted to the party to seek restoration of appeal, in case deemed fit by adequately explaining the reasons of non-appearance on each occasion.
2. Appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(SOMESH ARORA) MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )
(SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH) MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )
Prachi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal, after repeated non-appearance and adjournment requests, can be dismissed for want of non-prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CHEMIPOL Vs. UNION OF INDIARelied on¶22
CHEMIPOL Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2009 (244) ELT 497 (Bom.)
Bodal Chemicals Ltd
C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-i
SOMESH ARORA
SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a central excise matter before CESTAT.
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
