Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found repeated, unjustified adjournments - exceeding the statutorily permissible number - and reliance on established Supreme Court authority condemning mechanical grant of multiple adjournments. The contemned conduct demonstrated misuse of the tribunal's indulgence and failure to prosecute the appeal despite repeated opportunities and express warnings. Consequently, in exercise of its procedural powers the CESTAT struck the appeal from its docket and entered dismissal, with any relief contingent upon appropriate application for restoration subject to payment of costs and compliance with applicable conditions.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found repeated, unjustified adjournments - exceeding the statutorily permissible number - and reliance on established Supreme Court authority condemning mechanical grant of multiple adjournments. The contemned conduct demonstrated misuse of the tribunal's indulgence and failure to prosecute the appeal despite repeated opportunities and express warnings. Consequently, in exercise of its procedural powers the CESTAT struck the appeal from its docket and entered dismissal, with any relief contingent upon appropriate application for restoration subject to payment of costs and compliance with applicable conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
