1. Shri Vipin Nair, ld. advocate on a query from the Bench fairly concedes that even the revised EA-3 form is not according to the prescribed form inasmuch as Column 8(A) is missing. He also concedes that the certified copy of the order-in-original as required in terms of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules has also not been filed. He also concedes the further position that the seal of the company on the various documents filed on behalf of the company has not been affixed. We notice that the appellants have been given a number of opportunities to rectify the defects and yet the defects have not been rectified. We quote below the last order given by the Bench on 11-3-1994 :- "There is yet another unusual request by the learned counsel Shri Rajiv Dutta for adjournment, only to enable the appellants to rectify the defects, as pointed out by the Bench on 31-12-1993. On that day, the learned counsel was himself present in the Court and requested for time to do the needful. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 31-1-1994 but on that date none appeared and the Bench instead of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, that is to say, rectifying the defects adjourned the hearing for today at the cost of the time of Registry and Govt. Revenue, that is to say, order for issuing of notice for hearing on 31-1-1994. That is how the learned counsel appeared today submitting that he received the telephonic message from Shri Subhash Goel, Managing Director, intimating him that he had to go back because of an accident and was therefore, unable to reach Delhi. However, on a query from the Bench as to how and when he met with an accident and the place of the accident, he submitted that he did not enquire about these details.
2. The appeal is of 1992 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The matter is coming time and again for hearing right from 5th March, 1992. On 6-7-1992, COD application was dismissed for default of appearance and so the appeal vide Final order No. A/237/92-NRB. However, it was restored on 4-2-1993. On 23-2-1993, clerk of learned counsel appeared and requested for adjournment. On 4-8-1993, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Hence, an order for issuance of the notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not dismissed for non-compliance was issued. On 17-9-1993, Shri Vipin Nair, appeared as proxy counsel of Shri Rajiv Dutta and requested for adjournment. On 5-10-1993, the learned counsel Shri Rajiv Dutta never appeared and again his proxy, Vipin Nair appeared and requested for adjournment with an undertaking to file the Vakalatnama.
3. We are not happy with such casual approach and thought it proper to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. However, in the interests of justice and as a last chance we give two weeks to the appellants to rectify the said defects. Failure to rectify the defects may entail the dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. To come up for hearing on 28-3-1994." 2. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the continuing default of the appellants and also their advocate, we are of the view that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal properly and in accordance with law. Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss the same for want of prosecution and for want of non-compliance with the directions of the Bench under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.