https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426585 The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's repeated default in appearance. Despite prior communication from the appellant's counsel regarding the lack of instructions and a filed withdrawal memo, the appellant failed to engage a counsel or appear for the hearing. The Tribunal noted the appellant's lack of seriousness and significant delay since the appeal filing in 2012. Citing relevant legal provisions, including Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal found the appeal liable for dismissal and pronounced the order accordingly. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Aug 2022 08:34:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426585 The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's repeated default in appearance. Despite prior communication from the appellant's counsel regarding the lack of instructions and a filed withdrawal memo, the appellant failed to engage a counsel or appear for the hearing. The Tribunal noted the appellant's lack of seriousness and significant delay since the appeal filing in 2012. Citing relevant legal provisions, including Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal found the appeal liable for dismissal and pronounced the order accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426585