2010 (2) TMI 705 - AT - Service Tax

Application for restoration of appeal - Rule 40 and 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - adjournment of matter - held that - the contention that application for adjournment was not considered is totally devoid of substance. There was absolutely no case of defiance of principles of natural justice. It is not a matter of right for every party or its advocate to seek adjournment in a matter and that too without assigning proper justification and certainly not to seek adjournment indefinitely.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal Nos. E/3407 & 3408 of 2004.
2. Rejection of adjournment application.
3. Principles of natural justice.
4. Abuse of process by the Tribunal.
5. Recalling of the order.
6. Adjournment request due to personal reasons.

Restoration of Appeal:
The judgment pertains to applications for restoration of appeal Nos. E/3407 & 3408 of 2004, which were disposed of by Final Order No. 727-728/09-Ex on 8th September, 2009. The applicants sought restoration citing circumstances faced by the original respondent and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal had previously allowed the appeals but they were later restored. The Tribunal noted repeated adjournments due to non-appearance of the advocate for the respondents, leading to the disposal of the appeals in their absence.

Rejection of Adjournment Application:
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application filed by the advocate for the respondents on 8th September, 2009, due to the advocate's alleged illness. The Tribunal found that similar reasons had been cited in earlier adjournment requests, indicating a pattern. The Tribunal emphasized that not every party has an automatic right to adjourn a matter indefinitely without valid justification. The application lacked details on the duration of the advocate's illness and was not supported by a medical certificate.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The judgment addressed the contention of defiance of natural justice principles. It highlighted that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts before disposing of the appeals, emphasizing that seeking adjournments without proper justification is not a matter of right. The Tribunal stressed that the interests of justice must be balanced with the need for timely resolution.

Abuse of Process by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal discussed its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. It concluded that there was no abuse of process in disposing of the appeals on 8th September, 2009. The judgment emphasized that invoking such powers requires a party to provide a factual basis, which was lacking in this case. Any interference with the Tribunal's decision was deemed unnecessary and against the interest of justice.

Recalling of the Order:
The judgment dismissed the applications for recalling the order, citing the absence of a valid case for doing so. The Tribunal reiterated that the order was made after due consideration of the circumstances and previous adjournments. It emphasized that recalling the order would not serve the interest of justice and would amount to an abuse of powers.

Adjournment Request Due to Personal Reasons:
A subsequent adjournment request was made due to personal reasons, specifically the admission of the advocate's father-in-law to the hospital. However, the Tribunal had already delivered the order in open court, rendering the adjournment request irrelevant at that stage. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely proceedings and declined the adjournment request.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the various issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decisions.