Exemption for non-air-conditioned restaurant services survives where the establishment's air-conditioned section is separately identifiable and taxabl...
Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
