Restoration of appeal after non-appearance requires proof of service and a valid procedural basis for dismissal for default.

An appeal dismissed for non-appearance was restored because the record did not establish proper service of the hearing notice; the acknowledgement cards were missing and the order sheet did not show service or endorsement. The Tribunal also noted that no valid procedural provision then authorised dismissal for default, as Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules had already been struck down by the Gujarat High Court. On these facts, the dismissal order was recalled and both appeals were restored to their original numbers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, which had been dismissed for non-appearance, should be restored in the absence of proof of service of the hearing notice and in view of the absence of a valid procedural provision permitting dismissal for default.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the record did not show proper service of notice for the hearing date, as the acknowledgement cards were unavailable and the order sheet did not reflect service or endorsement. It further noted that there was no operative provision in the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules authorising dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance, since Rule 20 had already been struck down by the Gujarat High Court. In these circumstances, the appellant was held to have made out a sufficient case for restoration.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was recalled and both appeals were restored to their original numbers.

---