M/S.DolphIn Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

M/S.DolphIn Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 04, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941662

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/941662
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 04, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No.C/314 of 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S.DolphIn Electronics

Advocate Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Excerpt

per p.k. das none appears on behalf of the appellant. the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant filed an adjournment application on the ground that he is going out of station for medical check-up as per doctor’s advice. no copy of doctor’s advice was enclosed with the letter. on perusal of the record, we find that the matter was adjourned on 09.09.2009 at the request of the learned counsel. it is also noted that on 09.06.2009, it was adjourned by way of last chance. even thereafter, the matter was adjourned on two occasions at their request. it appears that the matter was adjourned on different occasions on various grounds. it seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue the matter. hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Full Judgment

Per P.K. Das

None appears on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant filed an adjournment application on the ground that he is going out of station for medical check-up as per doctor’s advice. No copy of doctor’s advice was enclosed with the letter. On perusal of the record, we find that the matter was adjourned on 09.09.2009 at the request of the learned counsel. It is also noted that on 09.06.2009, it was adjourned by way of last chance. Even thereafter, the matter was adjourned on two occasions at their request. It appears that the matter was adjourned on different occasions on various grounds. It seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue the matter. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties M/S.DolphIn Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &...