ORDER 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ’the Act’) against the order dated 01.08.2018 whereby restoration application was dismissed in Service Tax Appeal No. 1456/2010 by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short, ’CESTAT’). 2. Vide show cause notice dated 26.05.2008, a demand of central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 13,81,755/- was raised under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. In response to the same, reply was filed on 16.06.2008 by the appellant on merits. Learned Additional Commissioner rejected the submissions made by the appellant in reply and vide Order-in-Original No. 58/2009 dated 06.11.2009, confirmed the demand raised along with equivalent penalty and interest. The matter was agitated by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2010 upheld the above said Orderin-Original dated 06.09.2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, under Section 35G of the Act, appeal was preferred before the CESTAT (Tribunal) wherein vide order dated 22.12.2016, the appeal was dismissed in non-prosecution/in default for absence of the appellant. Against the same, appellant had filed an application for restoration of appeal and recalling of the order dated 22.12.2016. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2018 and therefore present appeal was filed on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether, order passed by the CESTAT dated 1.08.2018 cannot be said to be contrary to the mandatory provisions of rule 20 of CESTAT (procedure) Rules 1982, by which the Tribunal dismiss the restoration of application for restoring the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Tribunal? 2. Whether, order passed by the CESTAT on 1.8.2018 dismissing the restoration application is not contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2014 (310) ELT 209 (SC), while recalling the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.12.2016? 3. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that restoration application filed by the appellant is beyond time whereas no such time limit is provided under the law, as such conclusion arrived at by the CESTAT can be said to be proper?" 4. With the consent of parties, the matter was heard finally. 5. 3. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that restoration application filed by the appellant is beyond time whereas no such time limit is provided under the law, as such conclusion arrived at by the CESTAT can be said to be proper?" 4. With the consent of parties, the matter was heard finally. 5. The limited question involved in the present appeal pertains to first, whether the Tribunal has power to dismiss the appeal for want of non-appearance or non contest by the appellant/his counsel? And second, Whether the Tribunal can dismiss the appeal without considering the merits of the case? 6. In the case in hand, on 22.12.2016 the matter was taken up by the Tribunal after six years in Central Excise Appeal which was filed in the year 2010. For the reasons best known to the registry of the Tribunal or to the appellant’s counsel, none appeared for the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in default without considering the case on merits. Against the same, recalling application was filed as the concerned advocate could not make alternative arrangements, who was situated at Jaipur and the Tribunal was situated in Delhi. He submitted that nonappearance was not deliberate. He cited Hon’ble Apex Court judgments reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) titled as Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs, wherein it was held that the Tribunal had no authority to dismiss the appeal in an exparte manner on account of non-appearance/absence of the appellant without discussing the merits of the case as the statutory mandate of Section 35C of the Act does not give power of dismissal without considering the merits and further in the light of Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (for short, ’the Rules) and in the interest of fair play, the restoration should have been granted. 7. Learned Tribunal vide their order dated 1.8.2018, without considering and discussing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills (supra) by placing reliance on different judgments of High Courts, on issue of delay, dismissed the application for restoration, though admitting that there was no time limit for filing the application for restoration. 8. 7. Learned Tribunal vide their order dated 1.8.2018, without considering and discussing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills (supra) by placing reliance on different judgments of High Courts, on issue of delay, dismissed the application for restoration, though admitting that there was no time limit for filing the application for restoration. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned orders as well as restoration orders are bad in law as the mandatory provisions of the Section 35C of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules were not followed and are against the principles of natural justice as well as against the settled dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills (supra). 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that orders passed by the Tribunal are well reasoned. The restoration application was filed after an inordinate delay of time and even after that, the appellant was slipshod about the same and failed to appear at the necessary time, wasting precious time and resources of the learned Tribunal which clearly reflects his careless attitude and therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy. With regard to his contentions he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah Vs. Union Of India reported in 2012 (10) TMI 228 (Bom) and L. J. Synthetic Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-I reported in 2011 (270) ELT 507 (Guj), wherein it was held that when there is a delay which is not sufficiently explained, the court should be slow in entertaining the appeals and there is no question of law when there exists an inordinate delay. 10. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by respective counsels for both sides, perused the judgments cited at Bar and scanned the records of the appeal. 11. 10. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by respective counsels for both sides, perused the judgments cited at Bar and scanned the records of the appeal. 11. Before coming to the issue, it is important to consider the provision of Section 35C of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules, which reads as under:- "Section 35C- Orders of Appellate Tribunal (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary." "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." 12. On perusal of the said rules and upon placing reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills (supra), it is absolutely clear that no exparte order of dismissal for non-prosecution can be passed by the Tribunal and the appeal cannot be dismissed for absence of appellant. The CESTAT is duty bound to decide the appeal on merits as Section 35C of the Act only enables CESTAT, which is a Statutory Appellate Authority, to pass the order on appeal either confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or it may remand the matter. The provision of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Rules gives the power to the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal and to restore the appeal, if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The provision of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Rules gives the power to the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal and to restore the appeal, if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The use of the work ’shall’ in the proviso to Rule 20 even casts an obligation on the Tribunal to restore the appeal. 13. In the case in hand, it was the Tribunal which had taken up the appeal after six years of registration of the same. Counsel for the appellant was situated in Jaipur, the seat of the Tribunal was situated in Delhi and the impugned orders were passed after six years, only for his non-appearance. The matter was dismissed in default without any genuine reasons and opportunity. 14. Following the Hon’ble Apex Court on Balaji Steel Rerolling Mills (supra) and on account of statutory provisions under Section 35C of the Act and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Rules and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law and as both sides have consented for passing of final order at this stage, we are inclined to allow the appeal and refer the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal, afresh, as per merits of the case. 15. The order in default dated 22.12.2016 and order in application for restoration dated 01.08.2018, are set aside. The appeal is allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to restore the appeal and to consider the case on merits. 16. At this point of time, we also direct the Tribunal to maintain judicial decorum and discipline and to consider relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and not to overlook the same. 17. In the case in hand, the direct judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills (supra), was not considered and overlooked inspite of specific reference in the applications. Rather, contrary judgments/orders of various High Courts, Tribunal were given weightage which were not directly on point. This Court does not appreciate the said conduct and the Tribunal members are directed to follow principles of judicial discipline and to consider the provisions of law and judgments cited in the relevant applications and appeals. 18. With the above directions, appeal is allowed in above terms.