<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (11) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415004</link>
    <description>The appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s service tax demand and penalties imposed on M/s Air India Limited was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Mumbai, due to non-prosecution. Despite warnings against further adjournments, the appellant&#039;s Chartered Accountant failed to present the case, leading to the dismissal emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery and discouraging repeated adjournments hindering the legal process. The Tribunal highlighted the adverse impact of such delays on the justice system and ultimately dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the significant amount of service tax involved and the filing of an infructuous application for early hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:13:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415004</link>
      <description>The appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s service tax demand and penalties imposed on M/s Air India Limited was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Mumbai, due to non-prosecution. Despite warnings against further adjournments, the appellant&#039;s Chartered Accountant failed to present the case, leading to the dismissal emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery and discouraging repeated adjournments hindering the legal process. The Tribunal highlighted the adverse impact of such delays on the justice system and ultimately dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the significant amount of service tax involved and the filing of an infructuous application for early hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>