Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the pending appeals, said to have been filed by impersonation, should be dropped under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and what interim directions were required for hearing of the connected matters.
Analysis: The applicants alleged that the appeals were not filed by the persons named in the impugned order but by others fraudulently impersonating them, and sought dropping of the proceedings under Rule 41. The order recorded that the appeals arose out of a common and voluminous Commissioner's order and that all connected appeals should be placed before the same Bench. The Registry was directed to locate all appeals against the order, place them before the same Bench, and notify any appeals already disposed of. The applicants were permitted to be heard on the next date subject to deposit of 50% of the respective penalty amounts and production of proof of deposit.
Outcome: No final adjudication was made on the alleged impersonation or the request to drop the proceedings; only interim directions were issued for consolidation and further hearing.