2020 (2) TMI 190 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - it appears that the appellant is not interested in responding the notice - HELD THAT - The appellants have not responded to the notice issued to them for hearing in the matter or attended hearing any time when the matter was listed. Thus, it appears that they are not interested in pursuing this matter. Accordingly in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 after allowing more than three adjournments this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of the Appellant to respond to hearing notices and attend hearings.
2. Interpretation of the meaning of appeal and the requirement to pursue it effectively.
3. Application of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights the repeated failure of the Appellant to respond to hearing notices and attend scheduled hearings. Despite multiple opportunities provided, the Appellant did not engage in the proceedings, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. This non-participation led to the Tribunal's observation that the Appellant seemed disinterested in the case, as they neither responded to notices nor attended any hearings when the matter was listed.

2. The judgment cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee [118 ITR 461], emphasizing that an appeal does not merely involve the filing of a memo but also requires effective pursuit. This implies that the Appellant's passive approach towards the proceedings, by not responding to notices or attending hearings, does not align with the essence of pursuing an appeal diligently and actively participating in the legal process.

3. The judgment further references the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India [2009 (244) ELT 497 (Bom.) regarding the Tribunal's power to dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution. It underscores that every court or tribunal possesses the inherent authority to dismiss a case if the petitioner or appellant shows a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is invoked, allowing for the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution after granting more than three adjournments. This decision is made in consideration of the circumstances and facts of the case, ensuring that the power to dismiss is exercised judiciously.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty and Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, underscores the importance of active participation and diligent pursuit of appeals. The Appellant's repeated failure to engage in the proceedings led to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The judgment serves as a reminder of the responsibilities and expectations placed on parties involved in legal proceedings to actively participate and pursue their appeals effectively.