| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/13114 |
| Subject | Customs |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai |
| Decided On | Mar-19-1998 |
| Judge | R T Lajja, S Kang |
| Reported in | (1998)(77)LC357Tri(Mum.)bai |
| Appellant | System Dynamics |
| Respondent | Cc |
Excerpt:
1. when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice. in the notice the appellants were directed to furnish the compliance report in respect of the stay order dated 3.2.1994. the copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel on record. there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had complied with the stay order. in these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under rule 20 of the cegat (procedure) rules, 1982 and rule (sic) 129-e of the customs act, 1962 for non-compliance of the stay order dated 3.2.1994.
Judgment:
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice. In the notice the appellants were directed to furnish the compliance report in respect of the stay order dated 3.2.1994. The copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel on record. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had complied with the stay order. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Rule (sic) 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance of the stay order dated 3.2.1994.