Allowing the appeal of the assessee , The Court  held that , even if the  assessee  could not appear , the Tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits. When the miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee , th Tribunal ought to have restored  the appeal.  Tribunal is directed to decide the issue on merits.  The  Court also observed that the fact finding Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the case on merits because the view and reasons given by such Tribunals are important for the Constitutional Higher Courts to look into while deciding the substantial question of law  under S.260A of the Act arising from the Tribunal’s orders . A legal and binding responsibility lies upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits irrespective of the appearance of the assessee or his counsel before it or not .  Court also directed to send the copy of the Judgement to the President of the Tribunal as well as Law Secretary in the Ministry of law  and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all the Members of the Tribunal and the new appointees in the Tribunal at the time of their recruitment its self . The Tribunal may also get it circulated to all the existing members of the Tribunal so that , such orders resulting in serious miscarriage of justice should not be repeated by any member of the Tribunal . Followed Balaji  Steel Re. Rolling Mills  v. CCE&C (2014) 29GSTR 502 (SC) / (2015) AIRSCW 426 .   (Ratio in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar ( 1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC))   ( AY. 2010-11)