9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) These appeals were posted for hearing on 28-11-2005, however, the authorized representative Shri A. Shiva Rao, Chartered Accountant of the appellant could not be present owing to his father s ceremony on the very day in a Village in Dakshin Kannada District. Hence, he filed an adjournment application on 22-11-2005. The authorized representative, a Chartered Accountant does not appear before CESTAT regularly. In view of this, the next day of hearing was not ascertained immediately and by that time it was ascertained the matter was already heard and dismissed. The adjourned date of hearing was not communicated to the appellants separately. The authorized representative appeared before CESTAT for all the hearings or sought adjournme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by Registry by registered post, which returned undelivered, efforts should be made to effect service in other mode prescribed in Section 37 of the Act. (Para 13). (d) Margra Industries Ltd. v. CC - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (T-LB) Service of order should be effected by resorting to Sections 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned JDR Shri K. Sambi Reddy strongly opposed the prayer of the appellants. He relied on several decisions. (i) The Apex Court dismissed for non-appearance the Civil appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar against the CEGAT order reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1413 (Tri.-Calcutta). (ii) CESTAT in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , these appeals were listed on 28-11-2005. The letter of intimation was issued to the party on 11-11-2005. On receipt of the intimation, the appellant in their letter dated 19-11-2005 (copy produced by the appellant received in CESTAT on 22-11-2005 but the original is not seen in the file of the CESTAT) had indeed sought an adjournment for the reason that he would be attending his father s ceremony on the same date in Dakshina Kannada District. The reason given by the appellant appears to be legitimate. Further, we do not find a copy of the letter giving intimation to the appellant regarding the hearing on 5-12-2005. Further, even though the hearing was fixed on 28-11-2005, the matter was listed only on 30-11-2005. On that date, the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
