https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774569 CESTAT Chennai dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 due to appellant's non-appearance at hearing. The tribunal cited SC precedents condemning repeated adjournments without sufficient cause, emphasizing need to maintain confidence in justice delivery system and uphold rule of law. The tribunal noted that while Rule 20 allows restoration of dismissed appeals upon showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, no serious reason was provided for appellant's absence. The appeal was rejected for default, with tribunal emphasizing adjournments cannot be granted merely upon request without proof of legitimate reasons. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774569 CESTAT Chennai dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 due to appellant's non-appearance at hearing. The tribunal cited SC precedents condemning repeated adjournments without sufficient cause, emphasizing need to maintain confidence in justice delivery system and uphold rule of law. The tribunal noted that while Rule 20 allows restoration of dismissed appeals upon showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, no serious reason was provided for appellant's absence. The appeal was rejected for default, with tribunal emphasizing adjournments cannot be granted merely upon request without proof of legitimate reasons. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774569