2019 (11) TMI 285 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed for want of non-prosecution - HELD THAT - Perusal of record shows that despite the due service of notices i.e. more than thrice the appellants have not marked the presence either in person or through representative. This is the sufficient ground to form an opinion that the appellants are no more interested in pursuing the present appeals and the continuous absence of the appellants amount to non-prosecution on their part - this appears to be a good reason for adjourning the matters in further. Appeals are hereby dismissed for want of non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues: Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution due to continuous absence of appellants despite notices served.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertains to the dismissal of appeals due to non-prosecution by the appellants. The absence of the appellants, despite repeated notices served, led to the conclusion that they were no longer interested in pursuing the appeals.

2. The tribunal noted that the appellants failed to appear either in person or through a representative despite multiple notices. This continuous absence was deemed as non-prosecution on their part, providing sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the appeals.

3. Referring to a case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment highlighted the importance of not granting adjournments solely based on the absence of the appellants or their representatives. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that lack of knowledge about the case or being out of station does not justify adjournments, leading to the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.

4. The tribunal, drawing support from the Supreme Court's ruling, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, emphasizing that the continuous absence of the appellants without valid reasons warranted such a decision. The judgment made it clear that applications for restoration would not be entertained due to the lack of a valid ground for adjournment.

5. In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed for want of non-prosecution due to the appellants' continuous absence despite notices served, in line with legal precedents emphasizing the importance of active participation and representation in legal proceedings to avoid dismissal on grounds of non-prosecution.