M/S. DolphIn Electronics Vs. Cc, Chennai

M/S. DolphIn Electronics vs Cc, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Apr 19, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943019

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/943019
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Apr 19, 2011
Case Number: E/314/2004 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 2569/2004 dated 29.07.2004 passed by the Commi
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. DolphIn Electronics

Advocate For the Appellants: None. For the Respondents: C. Dhanasekaran, SDR.

Respondent

Cc, Chennai

Excerpt

per: jyoti balasundaram, 1. this appeal has been restored vide misc. order no. 136/10 dated 01.03.2010. post restoration, the appeal has been listed for regular hearing on quite a few occasions and at every time the appeal has been adjourned at the request of the ld. counsel of the appellants. for today’s hearing, the ld. counsel has sought for adjournment on the ground of illness. however, from the note sheets and record we find that, the case has been adjourned several times and we are therefore not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment. since, the assessees are not interested in pursuing the appeal we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

Full Judgment

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram,

1. This appeal has been restored vide Misc. Order No. 136/10 dated 01.03.2010. Post restoration, the appeal has been listed for regular hearing on quite a few occasions and at every time the appeal has been adjourned at the request of the Ld. Counsel of the appellants. For today’s hearing, the Ld. Counsel has sought for adjournment on the ground of illness. However, from the note sheets and record we find that, the case has been adjourned several times and we are therefore not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment. Since, the assessees are not interested in pursuing the appeal we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties M/S. DolphIn Electronics vs Cc, Chennai Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; t...