Restoration of appeal refused where the appellant failed to notify the Tribunal of its changed name and address.

An application to restore an appeal was rejected because the appellant company had changed its name and address without informing the Tribunal. Notice of hearing was sent to the address stated in the appeal memorandum and to the advocate on record, so the Tribunal held that non-receipt could not be relied on as a ground for restoration. The precedents cited by the applicant were found distinguishable, as they involved delayed appearance or late receipt of notice rather than failure to notify the Tribunal of a change of address. In these circumstances, the restoration request failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, earlier rejected on merits, should be allowed on the ground that the notice of hearing was not received after change of the appellant company's name and address.

Analysis: The appellant had changed its name and address but did not inform the Tribunal of the change. Notice of hearing was therefore sent to the address mentioned in the appeal memorandum and also to the advocate on record. The Tribunal found that the cited precedents on restoration were distinguishable because the factual situation there involved late appearance or delayed receipt of notice, whereas here there was no intimation of the change of address and no appearance on behalf of the applicant.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was rejected.

---