System Dynamics Vs. Cc

System Dynamics vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 19, 1998

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13114

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/13114
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: R T Lajja, S Kang
Decided On: Mar 19, 1998
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

System Dynamics

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(77)LC357Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice. in the notice the appellants were directed to furnish the compliance report in respect of the stay order dated 3.2.1994. the copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel on record. there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had complied with the stay order. in these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under rule 20 of the cegat (procedure) rules, 1982 and rule (sic) 129-e of the customs act, 1962 for non-compliance of the stay order dated 3.2.1994.

Full Judgment

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice. In the notice the appellants were directed to furnish the compliance report in respect of the stay order dated 3.2.1994. The copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel on record. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had complied with the stay order. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Rule (sic) 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance of the stay order dated 3.2.1994.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties System Dynamics vs Cc Same Subject Customs Same Judge R T Lajja, S Kang

Customs In respect of On behalf of Stay order in re