Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The request for adjournment beyond the statutory maximum of three times was rejected. The counsel's justification of a fire incident in 2021 was deemed inadequate, as there was ample time to reconstruct the file or obtain relevant documents from the registry or the appellant. The court held that if the counsel was serious about the matter, they should have taken appropriate measures, and thus, the request for further adjournment could not be considered.
The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The request for adjournment beyond the statutory maximum of three times was rejected. The counsel's justification of a fire incident in 2021 was deemed inadequate, as there was ample time to reconstruct the file or obtain relevant documents from the registry or the appellant. The court held that if the counsel was serious about the matter, they should have taken appropriate measures, and thus, the request for further adjournment could not be considered.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.