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 dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
