Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)M/S Pankaj Oxygen Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 7 January, 2010
7. I have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of
Pankaj Vs. CCE (supra) which has heavily relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs
Gopal in SLP (Civil) Nos.
Babu Singh And Ors vs The State Of U.P on 31 January, 1978
14117 & 14118/2021; Babu Singh Vs. State
of UP - (1978) 1 SCC 579; Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P)
Ltd. - (2011) 9 SCC 678; Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand & Anr.
M/S Shiv Cotex vs Tirgun Auto Plast P.Ltd.& Ors on 30 August, 2011
- (213) 5 SCC 202, etc and has concluded that there is no
justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times
which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The extract
from the judgment of Shiv Cotex (supra), is succinct and worth
reproducing. It was held as under:-
Noor Mohammed vs Jethanand on 5 September, 2014
14117 & 14118/2021; Babu Singh Vs. State
of UP - (1978) 1 SCC 579; Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P)
Ltd. - (2011) 9 SCC 678; Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand & Anr.
Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs Makhan Lal on 21 August, 2012
held that the Explanation to the Order categorically states that if the
appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can
only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits and went on
to allow the appeal. [Also see: Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs Makhan
Lal - AIRONLINE 2012 SC 322; Abdur Rahman & Ors Vs Athifa
Begum & Ors - AIRONLINE 1996 SC 621; Musaliarakath Muhamad
Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama The Zamorin Rajah - AIR
1923 MADRAS 13]
Abdur Rahman & Ors vs Athifa Begum & Ors on 30 August, 1996
held that the Explanation to the Order categorically states that if the
appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can
only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits and went on
to allow the appeal. [Also see: Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs Makhan
Lal - AIRONLINE 2012 SC 322; Abdur Rahman & Ors Vs Athifa
Begum & Ors - AIRONLINE 1996 SC 621; Musaliarakath Muhamad
Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama The Zamorin Rajah - AIR
1923 MADRAS 13]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Musaliarakath Muhamad Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama The Zamorin Rajah ... on 23 March, 1922
held that the Explanation to the Order categorically states that if the
appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can
only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits and went on
to allow the appeal. [Also see: Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs Makhan
Lal - AIRONLINE 2012 SC 322; Abdur Rahman & Ors Vs Athifa
Begum & Ors - AIRONLINE 1996 SC 621; Musaliarakath Muhamad
Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama The Zamorin Rajah - AIR
1923 MADRAS 13]
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal on 20 September, 2021
7. I have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of
Pankaj Vs. CCE (supra) which has heavily relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs
Gopal in SLP (Civil) Nos.