Skip to content


Peanut Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC666DTri(Delhi)
AppellantPeanut Products Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....of february, 1983 was served on the appellant. however, when the case was taken up on that day a letter dated 21st february, 1983 which had been received in the registry on 24th february, was placed before us. in the letter adjournment was sought for 15 to 20 days on the ground of illness of one director. we adjourned the hearing to 24th march, 1983 and announced the date in the open court.2. today on the case being called on for hearing, we find no arrangements for representation from the appellant. shri k.v.unnikrishnan for the revenue is present. we have repeatedly observed and have held that it is for the parties to inform themselves as to the outcome of their requests made, particularly when these are postal or telegraphic ones and it cannot or should not be expected of the.....
Judgment:
1. A notice dated 1st of Feb., 1983 fixing hearing on 25th of February, 1983 was served on the appellant. However, when the case was taken up on that day a letter dated 21st February, 1983 which had been received in the registry on 24th February, was placed before us. In the letter adjournment was sought for 15 to 20 days on the ground of illness of one Director. We adjourned the hearing to 24th March, 1983 and announced the date in the open court.

2. Today on the case being called on for hearing, we find no arrangements for representation from the appellant. Shri K.V.Unnikrishnan for the Revenue is present. We have repeatedly observed and have held that it is for the parties to inform themselves as to the outcome of their requests made, particularly when these are postal or telegraphic ones and it cannot or should not be expected of the Tribunal to inform as to whether requests are accepted or rejected.

3. In the present case when adjournment was requested for 15 to 20 days and which was accepted, we find no justification for fixing a fresh hearing date. Therefore, exercising our discretion under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, we dismiss the appeal for default of appearance.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //