Dismissed

Covidien Healthcare india private limited v. Cc Airport Ch - I

CESTAT10 Dec 2025C/42156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after the appellant failed to appear and the notice returned marked 'no such addressee', citing Supreme Court support.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Covidien Healthcare india private limited vs Cc… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | CESTAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. III

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 42156 of 2016

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. I No. 268/2016 dated 04.07.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Customs House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001)

¶5

M/s. Covidien Healthcare India Private Limited ...Appellant

¶6

L-6, 156, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai I Commissionerate, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai – 600 001.

¶9

APPEARANCE:

¶10

For the Appellant : None

¶11

For the Respondent : Mr. N. Satyanarayana, Authorised Representative

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶14

FINAL ORDER No. 41457 / 2025

¶15

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: 10.12.2025

¶16

Order :- Mr. P. DINESHA

¶17

None for the appellant, nor is there any request for adjournment. We find from the order sheet notings that the notice sent by the registry has come back with an endorsement ‘no such addressee’.

¶18

It is clear from the record that the notice has been sent to the address mentioned by the appellant in the CA-3 Form and, it appears that the appellant who perhaps changed his address has not bothered to intimate the Registry as to the change in its address and hence, without their participation, we are unable to proceed with

¶19

¶20

the appeal, the above also appears to be for the reason that they may not be interested in pursuing this appeal and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonprosecution under Rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

¶21

In this regard we draw support from the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Benny Dsouza & Ors. vs. Melwin Dsouza & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23809/2023], dated 24.11.2023 wherein, while examining the dismissal of appeal on merits in the context of Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “…If the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits”.

¶22

4. Appeal stands dismissed as indicated above.

¶23

(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶24

Sd/Sd/- (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶25

Covidien Healthcare india private limited v. Cc Airport Ch - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Covidien Healthcare india private limited v. Cc Airport Ch - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chahat Impex vs New Delhi(prev)

S S N Trading Co. vs Tuticorin

Tuticorin vs Suvidh Overseas

K S Murugan vs Tuticorin

Virendra Singh Baidwal vs Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva

Heranba Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - II

Adani Wilmar Limited vs Shillong

Delhi-iii vs Ms Vsm Impex Pvt. Ltd.