https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778506 CESTAT dismissed the appeal for default under Rule 20 (CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982) because the appellant and its authorised representative repeatedly failed to appear and notices to the recorded address were returned undelivered. The Tribunal noted no request to decide the appeal on merits ex parte, observed adjournments require serious, evidenced reasons, and found the appellant untraceable despite exhausting service methods. The order records that dismissal can be set aside if the appellant later shows sufficient cause for non-appearance, but no further purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:30:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778506 CESTAT dismissed the appeal for default under Rule 20 (CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982) because the appellant and its authorised representative repeatedly failed to appear and notices to the recorded address were returned undelivered. The Tribunal noted no request to decide the appeal on merits ex parte, observed adjournments require serious, evidenced reasons, and found the appellant untraceable despite exhausting service methods. The order records that dismissal can be set aside if the appellant later shows sufficient cause for non-appearance, but no further purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778506