PIYUSH SURENDRABHAI VIRAMGAMA Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the CESTAT, under which the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit came to be dismissed in absence.

(2.) From the record, we gather that such application was previously fixed for hearing on 29.12.2014, but was later on preponed by the Tribunal to 19.12.2014, of course with prior intimation to the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sent a fax message requesting for adjournment and followed it up by a written application which was received by the Tribunal after the date of hearing.