2023 (2) TMI 1143 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - No information has been made available even today (date) as to whether these 2 appellant companies are still in existence or have been liquidated. Counsels on 15.11.2022 have filed the withdrawal memo and thereafter notice was issued to the two appellant companies. Above facts point to inevitable conclusion that appellants are no more interested in pursuing these appeals before the Tribunal. Appeals are dismissed in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Non-appearance of the appellant for final hearing.
2. Lack of information regarding the status of the appellant companies.
3. Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-appearance of the appellant for final hearing
The appeals were listed for final hearing as per the order dated 15.11.2022. Despite multiple adjournments on earlier occasions due to non-appearance of the appellant or requests for adjournment by the counsel, the appellant did not appear for the final hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant at Serial No. 3 & 4 filed for withdrawal of vakalatnama on 17.05.2022, which was not placed on record. This lack of participation by the appellant indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Lack of information regarding the status of the appellant companies
During the proceedings, it was noted that one of the appellant companies, Lipid Systems Engineerings Pvt. Ltd., had gone into liquidation. However, there was no information available regarding the status of another company, Bran Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The counsel for the appellant had no information about the existence or liquidation status of these companies. Despite directions to verify the status of both companies before the next hearing date, no information was provided, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.

Issue 3: Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution
Considering the repeated non-appearance of the appellant, lack of information about the appellant companies, and the failure to pursue the appeals diligently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. This rule allows for dismissal of appeals when the appellant fails to prosecute the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to the appellant's non-appearance, lack of information about the appellant companies, and overall lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, highlighting the importance of active participation and diligence in legal proceedings before the Tribunal.