1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Application for Appeal Restoration Denied by CESTAT Chennai Due to Non-Compliance with Court Directive</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI rejected a party's application for restoration of appeal due to non-compliance with the High Court's directive to ... Appeal - Restoration of Issues: Non-compliance with High Court's direction for depositing a specific amount within a stipulated time period, party's failure to deposit the amount as directed, application for restoration of appeal after delay in depositing the amount, opposition by learned SDR, maintainability of the application for restoration.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the bench, consisting of Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and C. Satapathy, Member (T), addressed the non-compliance of a party with the High Court's direction to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within a specified time frame. The party failed to adhere to this directive and subsequently filed an application for restoration of the appeal in 2004, claiming that the amount had been deposited. The learned SDR opposed this application, arguing that since the appeal was not dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F or otherwise, the restoration application was not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's direction had not been followed, emphasizing that the proper course of action for the party would have been to seek an extension of time or condonation of the delay from the High Court. As the party did not take this route and instead applied for relief in 2004, the Tribunal rejected the application, stating that it was not liable to be allowed at that juncture.The judgment underscores the significance of complying with court directives and the appropriate legal procedures for seeking relief or extensions. It highlights the need for parties to adhere to court orders and pursue the correct legal avenues for addressing delays or non-compliance. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of following due process in legal matters and seeking redress through the proper channels to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
