2004 (3) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eking restoration of the above appeal. Which were dismissed for non-appearance by Final Order Nos. 850-851/2001, dated 30-4-2001. The learned Counsel submits that they have given reasons for non-appearance in their application and that should have been considered. The learned Counsel submits that the adjourned hearing date was not intimated to them and they were not aware of the matter having been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... show as to the reason for adjourning. There is no endorsement of the Consultant on the Order sheet. As stated by the learned Counsel there is no proviso in CESTAT (Procedure) Rules for dismissal of appeals for non-appearance. The Proviso which was in existence i.e. Rule 20 has already been struck down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. In that view of the matter, the appellants have made out a case fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X