TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal stresses timely conduct in legal proceedings, warns against delays</h1> <h3>Shri. Mithunlal Gupta M/s. Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Nashik</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI decided to adjourn the case to a specified date after noting repeated adjournments due to the personal difficulty of ... Recovery of excise duty - Held that:- Last 2 years the case has been listed number of times and getting adjourned - Keeping in view the conduct of appellant/advocate Revenue is free to recover the adjudged liability. Issues Involved:- Multiple adjournments requested due to personal difficulty of the advocate and non-appearance on behalf of the appellant.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a case where multiple adjournments were requested due to personal difficulty of the advocate representing the appellant, leading to non-appearance on behalf of the appellant in several instances. The case had been listed for final hearing, with an earlier partial stay granted to the appellant. Despite an early hearing application being allowed on a specific date, the case had been listed multiple times over the course of almost two years, with various reasons provided for adjournments. These reasons included personal difficulties of the advocate, non-appearance on behalf of the appellant, and the advocate being out of station or busy with matters in another court.The tribunal took note of the repeated adjournments and the conduct of the appellant and the advocate. In light of the circumstances and the history of adjournments, the tribunal decided to adjourn the matter to a specified date, after which the Revenue was granted the freedom to recover the adjudged liability. This decision was made considering the conduct of the appellant and the advocate, indicating that the tribunal was not inclined to entertain further delays or adjournments in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and diligent conduct during legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for parties to adhere to scheduled hearings and avoid unnecessary delays that could impact the resolution of the matter.
TaxTMI 
