M/S. Ushus Systems Vs. Cc, Chennai

M/S. Ushus Systems vs Cc, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Jun 27, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943923

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/943923
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: Jun 27, 2011
Case Number: DM 92/10, C/S/183/10 & C/265/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 89/2010 dated
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. Ushus Systems

Advocate For the Appellants: None. For the Respondents: Parmod Kumar, SDR.

Respondent

Cc, Chennai

Excerpt

per: jyoti balasundaram, we note that in spite of the registry pointing out defects in the form of non-production of proof of date of receipt of the impugned order in original, such defects have not been rectified. we also note that the case has been listed for hearing from 21.09.2010 and till date such defects have not been corrected by the assessees. hence, we decline to grant the adjournment sought by the appellants and dismiss the appeal in terms of rule 11 of cestat procedure rules, 1982, along with stay application.

Full Judgment

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram,

We note that in spite of the Registry pointing out defects in the form of non-production of proof of date of receipt of the impugned order in original, such defects have not been rectified. We also note that the case has been listed for hearing from 21.09.2010 and till date such defects have not been corrected by the assessees. Hence, we decline to grant the adjournment sought by the appellants and dismiss the appeal in terms of Rule 11 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, along with stay application.

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