https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376401 The Tribunal had no power to dismiss a service tax appeal for default or non-prosecution merely because the appellant or counsel was absent, including where a conditional stay order had not been complied with. Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Tribunal's statutory powers under the Central Excise and Salt Act required disposal on merits, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules could not override that mandate. The appellate tribunal was therefore bound to confirm, modify, annul, or remand the impugned decision on merits. The dismissal for default was held illegal and liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376401 The Tribunal had no power to dismiss a service tax appeal for default or non-prosecution merely because the appellant or counsel was absent, including where a conditional stay order had not been complied with. Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Tribunal's statutory powers under the Central Excise and Salt Act required disposal on merits, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules could not override that mandate. The appellate tribunal was therefore bound to confirm, modify, annul, or remand the impugned decision on merits. The dismissal for default was held illegal and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376401