https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95027 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. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:01:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95027 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95027