<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal dismissed for default under Rule 20 after RPAD service returned &quot;no such person&quot; and no address update</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93907</link>
    <description>The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of &quot;no such person/company,&quot; and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court&#039;s prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant&#039;s whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:01 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed for default under Rule 20 after RPAD service returned &quot;no such person&quot; and no address update</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93907</link>
      <description>The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of &quot;no such person/company,&quot; and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court&#039;s prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant&#039;s whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:01 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>