https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264878 The appeals were dismissed due to the appellants' failure to appear for the final hearing. They later sought restoration, claiming non-receipt of the hearing notice. The appellant's counsel argued for restoration based on the factory's closure and lack of notice. However, the Department opposed, emphasizing the need for an alternative communication address. The Tribunal considered both sides but ultimately dismissed the restoration applications, citing the appellant's failure to provide a valid communication address. The decision was made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264878 The appeals were dismissed due to the appellants' failure to appear for the final hearing. They later sought restoration, claiming non-receipt of the hearing notice. The appellant's counsel argued for restoration based on the factory's closure and lack of notice. However, the Department opposed, emphasizing the need for an alternative communication address. The Tribunal considered both sides but ultimately dismissed the restoration applications, citing the appellant's failure to provide a valid communication address. The decision was made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264878