V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J) - (1.) THIS application is for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 27-10-1986 under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for default of appearance of the appellants as well as non-compliance with the requirements of the notice of hearing. It is mentioned in the application that on receipt of notice of hearing for 3-9-1986 the applicants sent a telegram seeking for adjournment and followed it up by a letter dated 4-9-1986 but that they received no information. According to them they made further enquiries in May, 1987 and then only learnt of the dismissal of the appeal on 27-10-1986. The application reads that the non-appearance of the appellants on 27-10-1986 was entirely due to ignorance of the date of hearing and hence the appeal may be restored to file.
(2.) We have heard Shri B.B. Gujaral, Advocate for the applicants and Smt. Dolly Saxena for the Department. Shri Gujaral submits that since neither the notice for the hearing on 27-10-1986 nor even a copy of the order dated 27-10-1986 was received by the appellants, the appellants were absent on 27-10-1986 and such absence was not intentional. Smt. Saxena submitted that when, in pursuance of the telegram the appeal was adjourned from 3-9-1986 to 27-10-1986 a copy of the said order was also sent to the appellants indicating clearly that the appeal will be heard on 27-10-1986 and that the paper books, for filing which the appellants had prayed for time in the telegram, were to be filed by 13-10-1986 itself. She, therefore, submits that the plea of the appellants that they were not aware of the date of hearing on 27-10-1986 is incorrect and ought not to be accepted.
(3.) IT is admitted Jhat the notice for the hearing on 3-9-1986 had been received. The copy of the order dated 3-9-1986 had also been despatched to the same address as also the copy of the order 'dated 27-10-1986. In the circumstances the plea of the applicants as if they had not received either of the said orders is not acceptable. Under the order dated 3-9-1986 the applicants had been specifically informed that the papers proposed to be filed by them should be filed at least by 13-10-1986. In their telegram received on 11-8-1986 the applicants had prayed for a month's time for filing paper books. IT is significant that they have not filed the same even till now. IT may also be noted that in the notice for the hearing today, the applicants had been specifically informed that if the application for restoration of the appeal is allowed the appeal would also be taken up for hearing the same day. The very fact that even so the applicants have not chosen to file a paper book even now would only indicate that the applicants are not very serious about conducting the proceedings in the appeal.;