The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, dismissed an appeal due to ...

Abatement of appeal due to non-prosecution beyond three adjournments. Upheld based on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod case.

June 6, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, dismissed an appeal due to abatement caused by non-prosecution of the case. The Tribunal held that adjourning a matter beyond three times, as seen in a Supreme Court case, is unjustified. The Supreme Court condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments. In this case, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, the appellant did not avail of the opportunities granted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, in line with Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, dismissed an appeal due to ...

Abatement of appeal due to non-prosecution beyond three adjournments. Upheld based on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod case.

June 6, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

The CESTAT dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, after multiple adjournments exceeded the statutory maximum of three....

CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellant had sought adjournments beyond the statutory maximum...

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Request for adjournment, which cannot be accepted in virtual hearing - The case involved repeated requests for...

The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The request for adjournment beyond the statutory...

CESTAT ALLAHABAD dismissed an appeal due to abatement for adjourning the matter beyond three times, citing Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. Referring to...

Denial of adjournment request - Release of goods based on forged documents leading to fraud - Customs clearance of imported mobile phones with duplicate IMEI numbers -...

Power of adjournment - giving a choice of three dates for personal hearing in one letter and seeking of adjournment by the appellant by one month, would not amount to...

Scope of adjournment of matter beyond three times - Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - The Tribunal dismisses the appeal due to the appellant's non-prosecution,...

The High Court held that prosecution u/ss 276C, 277, 278B, and 278E for tax evasion was invalid as it violated CBDT guidelines. Prosecution was premature without the...

Ex-parte order rejecting the repetitive adjournments - The petitioners had no right to seek unlimited adjournments nor seek adjournment without any basis. - HC

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Matter has been listed quite a number of times in the past and appellant has been abstaining from attending the...

CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following...

Transfer pricing issues: Royalty arrangement including trademark, know-how upheld based on CUP method over TNMM. Advertisement expenses remanded for fresh determination....

Dismissal of the appeal by CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to the assessee's failure to respond to multiple hearing notices...

Validity of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance - The assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, moreover, such non-compliance was done by...

Quick Updates: