https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86281 CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following precedent from SC's ruling in an analogous case involving Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, the Tribunal determined that appeals with unexplained absences should be dismissed for non-prosecution rather than on merits. The decision emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without substantial cause and supporting evidence justifying non-appearance. While Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 permits restoration, the Tribunal concluded no purpose would be served by continuing proceedings given repeated defaults. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:01 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86281 CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following precedent from SC's ruling in an analogous case involving Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, the Tribunal determined that appeals with unexplained absences should be dismissed for non-prosecution rather than on merits. The decision emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without substantial cause and supporting evidence justifying non-appearance. While Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 permits restoration, the Tribunal concluded no purpose would be served by continuing proceedings given repeated defaults. Highlights Customs Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:01 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86281