<?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>2023 (1) TMI 449 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432702</link>
    <description>Repeated adjournments were rejected where the appellants had already been given multiple opportunities, including a last chance, but still failed to produce any medical certificate or supporting material and their counsel was unable to argue. The Tribunal applied the limit on adjournments under the governing procedural provision and its power under the appeal rules to refuse any further postponement. It followed the settled approach discouraging repeated adjournments and held that an appeal may be dismissed when the appellant does not appear or does not prosecute the matter. The appeals were therefore liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and dismissal was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=701412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 449 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432702</link>
      <description>Repeated adjournments were rejected where the appellants had already been given multiple opportunities, including a last chance, but still failed to produce any medical certificate or supporting material and their counsel was unable to argue. The Tribunal applied the limit on adjournments under the governing procedural provision and its power under the appeal rules to refuse any further postponement. It followed the settled approach discouraging repeated adjournments and held that an appeal may be dismissed when the appellant does not appear or does not prosecute the matter. The appeals were therefore liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and dismissal was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>