2019 (10) TMI 548 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - pendency of the appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - The pendency of appeal cannot be allowed to be a ground for the appellant to avoid the illegality already noticed against him. Simultaneous absence of the Appellant for the day is sufficient to hold that he is not interested in pursuing the matter and is rather gaining time and the benefit of avoiding penalty already impressed upon him by keeping the appeal pending. The impugned appeal dismissed for intentional non-prosecution and also for the reason that appeal otherwise has no merits issue being already settled against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Non-prosecution of appeal, intentional delay in proceedings, penalty under Section 114(a) of Customs Act, 1962, smuggling of red sanders, intentional non-prosecution, settled issue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a case where the Appellant failed to appear despite multiple adjournments. The Respondent, represented by a Departmental Representative, highlighted that the issue in question had already been settled. The case pertained to smuggling red sanders, with the Appellant acting as a custom broker for the consignment clearance. The penalty under Section 114(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed by the adjudicating authorities, was confirmed by the Tribunal in previous orders. The Tribunal noted the repeated adjournments sought by the Appellant and concluded that there was no merit in the case. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was intentionally delaying proceedings and avoiding the penalty by not actively pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal emphasized that the pendency of an appeal cannot be used as a tactic to evade legal consequences already established against the Appellant. The absence of the Appellant during the proceedings was interpreted as a lack of interest in pursuing the matter and a deliberate attempt to prolong the process. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to intentional non-prosecution and the lack of merit in the case, given that the issue had already been settled against the Appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, highlighting the finality of the decision.