Appeal restoration denied due to non-attendance and failure to establish a case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for restoration of Appeal No. ST/325/2010, finding that the order disposing of the appeal was on merits, and the appellant failed to establish a case for restoration. The Tribunal noted that the hearing notice was sent to the appellant's last address and Counsel on record. Considering the Grounds of Appeal and a precedent upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the non-attendance was intentional, leading to the dismissal of the restoration application.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of Appeal No. ST/325/2010

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for the restoration of Appeal No. ST/325/2010, which was disposed of by the Bench on 30th November, 2016, recording that none appeared on behalf of the appellant.

2. The appellant's Counsel argued that they did not receive any hearing notice, and hence, the order was an ex parte order. They contended that the non-attendance was unintentional, and serious prejudice would be caused if the appeal was not restored and heard on merits.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the order passed by the Bench was on merits.

4. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the application for restoration of appeal was not a viable course against the final order dated 30th November, 2016. The notice of hearing was dispatched to the appellant's last address and the Counsel on record. The Bench disposed of the appeal on merits after considering the Grounds of Appeal and relied on a precedent upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish a case in their favor, leading to the dismissal of the application for restoration of appeal.

---