1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeal Dismissed for Non-Appearance and Monetary Limit Exceeded</h1> The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI due to the appellant's continuous non-appearance for the hearing, despite prior ... Maintainability of appeal - absence of the appellant and counsel - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- Due to the continuous absence of the appellant and counsel, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Further, the amount involved is only βΉ 76,000/- and as per the provisions of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on monetary limits. The appeal is dismissed both on the ground of non-prosecution and also on monetary limit. Issues: Non-appearance of appellant for hearing, continuous absence leading to dismissal, monetary limit under Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appeal was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the appellant for the hearing despite notices being issued. The appellant and counsel had previously requested adjournments on multiple dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The continuous absence of the appellant and counsel led to the presumption that they were not interested in pursuing the appeal. Additionally, the amount involved in the case was only &8377; 76,000, falling within the monetary limits specified under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-prosecution and also due to the monetary limit being exceeded. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court, finalizing the dismissal of the appeal.