9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-2008, would not be available at Mumbai on 11-1-2010 and, therefore, the matter would not be heard on that day - There is no justification for absence of the applicant on the relevant day - There being no other ground disclosed for the absence of the applicant and his advocate on the date when the matter was heard and dismissed, we do not find any case having been made out for entertaining the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn to the order of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Kellogg India Ltd., reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. A-117 (Bom). 3. On the other hand the Ld. DR drew our attention to the order dated 11-1-2010 and submitted that the Tribunal had taken note of absence of the appellants on the two earlier dates of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal had dismissed their application for non-prosecution. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is as under : The applicant submit that through a friend on telephone the applicant was informed that the Bench who has passed the order is not available today hence there will not be the hearing of the above application . 7. Apparently the reason for absence of the applicant and their Advocate on 11-1-2010 was that the appellants were informed by their friend that in the Bench who had heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Mumbai on 11-1-2010. Besides, one of the member viz., Shri A.K. Srivastava, the Hon ble Member (Technical) had already retired by October 2009. 9. In any case, it was not permissible to the assessee to remain absent merely on assumption that the Bench would not hear the matter and thereupon to contend that the same to be a justifiable ground for his absence. It is not permissible for any litig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
