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>CESTAT appeals abated for non-compliance with Rule 22. Successor-in-interest failed to file continuation application in time.</h1> <h3>M/s. Tops Security Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-VI, Mumbai</h3> M/s. Tops Security Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-VI, Mumbai - TMI Issues: Abatement of appeal due to non-compliance with Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.In this case, the appellant failed to appear for the hearing, and the Resolution Professional was not present as directed by the Bench. The Registry was instructed to send notice to the Resolution Professional for the next hearing date, but it was not complied with initially. The Bench later directed the notice to be sent to the Resolution Professional at a specific address for appearance on a particular date. The Registry confirmed sending the notice, but no application for continuation of proceedings by the successor-in-interest was filed within the stipulated time frame under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Rule 22 outlines the procedure for continuance of proceedings after the death, insolvency, or winding up of a party, requiring an application by the successor-in-interest within sixty days of the event. As no such application was filed within the specified time, the appeals were deemed to abate by operation of Rule 22. The judgment held that sufficient time had been given for compliance, and as no application was submitted, the appeals abated accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
