2019 (7) TMI 512 - AT - Customs

Request for adjournment - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - It is apparent that several adjournments without any cogent reason have already been availed by the appellant. Also vide order dated 29.01.2019, the written request for adjournment was reluctantly accepted by this Tribunal with the direction that no further adjournment shall be granted. Still more than six adjournments have already been obtained by the appellant, thereafter that too by filing the similar applications. The copies attached on record makes it clear that except personal difficulty or being suffering from viral fever , no other reason while praying for adjourning the matter (in any of the applications filed till date) has been mentioned. The present appeal is nothing but a time gaining strategy of the appellant and that the appellant is not at all interested in pursuing this appeal - this case deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant without valid reasons leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

Analysis:

1. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, and a written request for adjournment was submitted, which was found to be a repeated effort for seeking adjournment. The tribunal noted that multiple adjournments had already been granted to the appellant without any valid reasons. Despite a previous order directing no further adjournments, the appellant continued to seek adjournments with reasons like "personal difficulty" or "viral fever," which were not considered substantial. The tribunal observed that the appellant's actions indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal and a disregard for the tribunal's directions.

2. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the repeated pattern of seeking adjournments without valid grounds, concluded that the appeal was merely a tactic to delay proceedings. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the tribunal held that the appellant's behavior warranted dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions demonstrated a lack of seriousness and respect for the tribunal's instructions, leading to the decision to dismiss the appeal.

3. In light of the appellant's persistent requests for adjournments without substantial reasons, the tribunal found that the appeal lacked merit and was being used as a means to delay the proceedings. Therefore, the tribunal, relying on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The decision was made based on the appellant's repeated failure to adhere to the tribunal's directions and the apparent lack of genuine interest in pursuing the appeal, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the case.