Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
