<?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>2025 (3) TMI 198 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766813</link>
    <description>Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment of an appeal only up to three times on sufficient cause being shown, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 allows dismissal for default or decision on merits when the appellant does not appear. Where the appellant remained absent on successive dates and sought no adjournment, the Tribunal found no basis to extend the matter beyond the statutory limit and treated dismissal for non-prosecution as warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 198 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766813</link>
      <description>Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment of an appeal only up to three times on sufficient cause being shown, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 allows dismissal for default or decision on merits when the appellant does not appear. Where the appellant remained absent on successive dates and sought no adjournment, the Tribunal found no basis to extend the matter beyond the statutory limit and treated dismissal for non-prosecution as warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>