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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
