https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105963 A joint appeal filed on behalf of nine appellants did not require separate condonation or restoration proceedings where those appeals had not been dismissed. For the remaining restoration applications, the Tribunal held that an expectation of written communication of the next adjourned date did not justify restoration when the dismissal had been dictated in court and the cause list showed the position. It also treated production of original powers of attorney as material to maintainability where authorisation to file on behalf of appellants had been directed. As no sufficient explanation for delay was shown, the remaining applications for condonation and restoration were dismissed. en-us Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:36:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105963 A joint appeal filed on behalf of nine appellants did not require separate condonation or restoration proceedings where those appeals had not been dismissed. For the remaining restoration applications, the Tribunal held that an expectation of written communication of the next adjourned date did not justify restoration when the dismissal had been dictated in court and the cause list showed the position. It also treated production of original powers of attorney as material to maintainability where authorisation to file on behalf of appellants had been directed. As no sufficient explanation for delay was shown, the remaining applications for condonation and restoration were dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105963