https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206173 The Tribunal dismissed the application for non-prosecution due to the unjustifiable absence of the appellants and their advocate for three consecutive hearings. The request for reconsideration and modification of the previous order was rejected, emphasizing the importance of diligent pursuit of legal matters and adherence to procedural rules. The Tribunal clarified that assumptions about Bench availability cannot justify absence, highlighting the necessity of direct communication with the Tribunal and proper adherence to hearing procedures. The application was ultimately rejected, underscoring the significance of following proper communication and procedural rules in legal proceedings. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206173 The Tribunal dismissed the application for non-prosecution due to the unjustifiable absence of the appellants and their advocate for three consecutive hearings. The request for reconsideration and modification of the previous order was rejected, emphasizing the importance of diligent pursuit of legal matters and adherence to procedural rules. The Tribunal clarified that assumptions about Bench availability cannot justify absence, highlighting the necessity of direct communication with the Tribunal and proper adherence to hearing procedures. The application was ultimately rejected, underscoring the significance of following proper communication and procedural rules in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206173