https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120676 The Tribunal rejected the Restoration of Appeal application due to non-appearance by the Respondent's counsel, leading to an ex parte order. Despite citing counsel's illness, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for non-appearance, emphasizing the necessity of proper notice to render proceedings valid. While Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules was discussed, it was deemed inapplicable as the Revenue was the appellant. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order based on the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the Respondent had been adequately informed but failed to respond, ultimately rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:41:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120676 The Tribunal rejected the Restoration of Appeal application due to non-appearance by the Respondent's counsel, leading to an ex parte order. Despite citing counsel's illness, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for non-appearance, emphasizing the necessity of proper notice to render proceedings valid. While Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules was discussed, it was deemed inapplicable as the Revenue was the appellant. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order based on the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the Respondent had been adequately informed but failed to respond, ultimately rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120676