Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellant had sought adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three times permitted under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod, where the SC condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification for granting additional adjournments. The SC had previously emphasized that parties who repeatedly seek adjournments despite specific warnings and opportunities effectively misuse judicial grace, warranting dismissal of their proceedings.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellant had sought adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three times permitted under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod, where the SC condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification for granting additional adjournments. The SC had previously emphasized that parties who repeatedly seek adjournments despite specific warnings and opportunities effectively misuse judicial grace, warranting dismissal of their proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
