2011 (5) TMI 963 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Misleading the Tribunal by seeking adjournment on false grounds, Contempt of court, Reference to High Court for contempt proceedings

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue at hand revolves around the misleading actions of the appellants in seeking an adjournment based on false grounds. The advocate representing the appellants initially cited health reasons for adjournment, claiming to have undergone a bye-pass surgery and advised bed rest. However, investigations revealed that the advocate had resumed work a year prior, indicating a misleading attempt by the appellants. The Tribunal deemed this behavior as interference in the administration of justice, constituting contempt of court. The Tribunal highlighted that seeking adjournment on false grounds is a serious offense, supported by established legal precedents from the Apex Court and Bombay High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal considered it a suitable case for reference to the High Court for necessary contempt proceedings against the appellants. Despite this, the appellants were granted an opportunity to provide an explanation within 15 days before any decision on the reference to the High Court. The advocate initially representing the appellants was discharged from the matter, and a notice was issued for the appellants to appear before the Tribunal to address the contemptuous act. The matter was adjourned until the appellants could present their case, ensuring due process was followed before any further actions were taken.