IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.314 of 2005 SITA RAM GIRI, SON OF LATE INDER GIRI, RESIDENT OF AT & P.O. & P. S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, CUSTOM HOUSE AGENT NO.2/CHA/99, LAND CUSTOM STATION, RAXAUL ……………………………….. APPLICANT/APPELLANT Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXISE, C.R. BUILDING, B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, C.R. BUILDING, B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAND CUSTOM STATION,AT & P.O. & P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN… …………………………RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------- For the Appellant : M/s Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Ved Prakash Srivastava & Praveen Prabhabhas, Advocates For the Union of India : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate *** 8. 06.02.2009 Heard the parties. On going through the impugned order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13.12.2004 in Miscellaneous Application No. 298/04 in Appeal No.140/04 (SP.381/03); we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that substantial question of law has been wrongly decided by the learned Tribunal. The question is – whether, a party who has already engaged an Advocate to represent him, is required to appear in person in case of default by the Advocate. The Tribunal has held that the party - 2 - has the responsibility to appear in person on the very date on which the default takes place. In our considered view, when Advocates are permitted to represent a party, the party cannot be expected to be present in person on each and every date. In that view of the matter, we find that the Tribunal has committed error of law in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the appellant to restore the appeal dismissed for default. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2004 is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merit. B.T (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)