2009 (3) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Advocate is engaged before some other authority on the day when the matter is fixed before the Tribunal, cannot be a justification for adjournment. It was necessary for the concerned Advocate to make necessary arrangement, when he has to appear for the appellant on this date. Merely sending an application is not sufficient. Hence the application for adjournment is reject and in the absence of appellant or his representative, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance of the appellant or their representative. The application for adjournment was rejected as the Advocate's engagement with another authority was not a sufficient justification. The appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.