https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773855 CESTAT dismissed appeal for want of prosecution after appellant failed to appear despite seven hearing opportunities. HC had directed appellant to fulfill pre-deposit within 60 days, which was already satisfied, and CESTAT to decide appeal within 120 days. Appellant's director submitted medical certificate showing lumbar spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, but failed to appear even after recovery period ended. CESTAT rejected restoration application, noting it's not a matter of right and requires exceptional circumstances with valid reasons. Despite SC precedent in Chennappa Mudaliar requiring merit-based decisions, CESTAT exercised powers under Rule 21 to pass ex-parte final order after repeated non-appearance. en-us Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:43:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773855 CESTAT dismissed appeal for want of prosecution after appellant failed to appear despite seven hearing opportunities. HC had directed appellant to fulfill pre-deposit within 60 days, which was already satisfied, and CESTAT to decide appeal within 120 days. Appellant's director submitted medical certificate showing lumbar spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, but failed to appear even after recovery period ended. CESTAT rejected restoration application, noting it's not a matter of right and requires exceptional circumstances with valid reasons. Despite SC precedent in Chennappa Mudaliar requiring merit-based decisions, CESTAT exercised powers under Rule 21 to pass ex-parte final order after repeated non-appearance. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773855