https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774489 CESTAT Chennai dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution after the appellant failed to appear despite proper notice delivery. The tribunal noted four previous occasions of non-representation, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Citing SC precedent in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal & Others regarding repeated adjournments, the tribunal emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without serious reasons or proof. Finding no purpose in continuing proceedings, the appeal was rejected for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:11:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774489 CESTAT Chennai dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution after the appellant failed to appear despite proper notice delivery. The tribunal noted four previous occasions of non-representation, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Citing SC precedent in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal & Others regarding repeated adjournments, the tribunal emphasized that adjournments cannot be granted without serious reasons or proof. Finding no purpose in continuing proceedings, the appeal was rejected for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774489