Uma Printers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Uma Printers vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 02, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36989

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/36989
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, A T V.K.
Decided On: Nov 02, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Uma Printers

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(180)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. on matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants.our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 1-11-2004 written by m/s. uma printers, requesting for adjournment on the ground that they have not been able to collect the case papers and discuss the matter with their advocate.2. shri hitesh shah, ld. sdr, submits that the matter has been adjourned a number of times on request of the appellants and prays for dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.3. we find that the matters were listed on out of turn basis and have since been adjourned a number of times. the appellants were not justified in asking for another adjournment on the ground that the staff members were busy and unable to collect the case papers. we find that the last occasion the appellant's advocates were present and the staff being busy somewhere else cannot be taken as reasonable ground for adjourning the matters. accordingly, we dismiss all the appeals for non-prosecution.

Full Judgment

1. On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants.

Our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 1-11-2004 written by M/s. Uma Printers, requesting for adjournment on the ground that they have not been able to collect the case papers and discuss the matter with their advocate.

2. Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. SDR, submits that the matter has been adjourned a number of times on request of the appellants and prays for dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

3. We find that the matters were listed on out of turn basis and have since been adjourned a number of times. The appellants were not justified in asking for another adjournment on the ground that the staff members were busy and unable to collect the case papers. We find that the last occasion the appellant's advocates were present and the staff being busy somewhere else cannot be taken as reasonable ground for adjourning the matters. Accordingly, we dismiss all the appeals for non-prosecution.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Uma Printers vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, A T V.K.