https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84264 Non-appearance by the appellant's counsel, despite prior notice of the hearing, led the Tribunal to reject the adjournment request because no adequate reason for absence was shown. On that basis, the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The text illustrates the procedural consequence of failing to attend a scheduled hearing when notice has already been given and no sufficient explanation is offered for non-appearance. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:34:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84264 Non-appearance by the appellant's counsel, despite prior notice of the hearing, led the Tribunal to reject the adjournment request because no adequate reason for absence was shown. On that basis, the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The text illustrates the procedural consequence of failing to attend a scheduled hearing when notice has already been given and no sufficient explanation is offered for non-appearance. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84264