PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following precedent from SC's ruling in an analogous case involving Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, the Tribunal determined that appeals with unexplained absences should be dismissed for non-prosecution rather than on merits. The decision emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without substantial cause and supporting evidence justifying non-appearance. While Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 permits restoration, the Tribunal concluded no purpose would be served by continuing proceedings given repeated defaults.
CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following precedent from SC's ruling in an analogous case involving Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, the Tribunal determined that appeals with unexplained absences should be dismissed for non-prosecution rather than on merits. The decision emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without substantial cause and supporting evidence justifying non-appearance. While Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 permits restoration, the Tribunal concluded no purpose would be served by continuing proceedings given repeated defaults.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
