2007 (10) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id final order was passed without proper notice of hearing. The remaining application is for "rectification" of the final order on the ground that the said order was passed without considering the substantial grounds raised in the memo of appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the hospital and learned SDR for the Revenue. 2. At the outset, we note that one of the applications before us is to "rectify" the final order while the other application is to set it aside. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, we proceed to deal with the matter. 3. On 20-6-2007, there was no representation for the hospital despite notice, nor any request for adjournment. In the circumstances, we examined the records (including the grounds of appeal), heard le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the present applications, that they had obtained CDEC from DGHS for import of the goods in question. It is also claimed that the hospital is possessed of records evidencing due compliance with the requirement of free treatment to poor patients and other requirements under the Notification for the relevant period. However, neither of these records has been shown to us even at this stage. In other words, there is no attempt to substantiate the grounds of the present applications. 5. Moreover, we notice that one of the applications is under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. This rule as it stood originally reads as under :- "Action on appeal for appellant's default. - Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or ....