Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT ALLAHABAD dismissed an appeal due to abatement for adjourning the matter beyond three times, citing Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. Referring to ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD case, the Tribunal emphasized the Supreme Court's disapproval of mechanical adjournments, highlighting the need to avoid excessive delays in proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits on adjournments to prevent non-prosecution of appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
