2020 (1) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - Perusal of record shows that since the filing of appeal till date there is no single appearance of the appellant except the repeated written request of the adjournment. Today's absence coupled with the above observation for the conduct of the appellant is sufficient to opine that appellant is not interested in pursuing the impugned appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal for want of prosecution. The appeals dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues: Lack of prosecution by the appellant leading to dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Rachana Gupta, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, deals with the issue of lack of prosecution by the appellant. The appellant failed to appear for the appeal proceedings despite repeated written requests for adjournment. The Member noted the absence of the appellant and observed that it indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the Member decided to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

2. The Member relied on a case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically the case of Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The Supreme Court in that case had dismissed appeals for non-prosecution when the learned counsel for the appellants failed to appear in court and sought an adjournment without valid grounds. The Supreme Court had emphasized that lack of knowledge about the case or being out of station was not considered valid reasons for adjournment. The Supreme Court had also made it clear that no application for restoration would be entertained under such circumstances.

3. Drawing support from the Supreme Court's precedent, the Member concluded that the repeated absence of the appellant and the lack of interest demonstrated in pursuing the appeal warranted the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The Member, therefore, dismissed the appeals in the present case based on the appellant's conduct and failure to actively participate in the proceedings. The decision was made in the absence of the appellant, and the order was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.