TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (T)]. This is an application by M/s. La Grande Projects Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed for default in terms of Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules vide Final Order No. A/141/98-NB, dated 4-3-1998. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the applicants, submitted that the applicants had filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 3/Cus/97, dated 25-4-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj.) wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that the Tribunal is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance. 3. Opposing the prayer, Shri Randhir Singh, JDR, submitted that though no time limit has been specified in the Act or Rule for filing the application for restoration of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dismissal, was rejected. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The submissions made by the learned Advocate are well founded. There is a Column No. 6 in C.A.-3 Applications which requires appellant to mention the address to which notices may be sent. We find that the address mentioned in Column 6 of C.A.-3 Application was not used by the registry for forwarding the Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
