2020 (2) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Request of adjournment - non-prosecution on the part of appellant - HELD THAT - The appellant is not interested in giving any explanation about contradiction, if any, in the decision of two coordinate benches nor seems aggrieved thereof despite the opportunity was given vide the final order dated 5 March 2019. Thus the absence of the appellant consecutively for almost five times since the impugned final order is sufficient to hold non-prosecution on the part of appellant. Apparently the said order was not only pronounced in open court but was dictated as a whole in the open court. The recording in para 12 of the said decision is inter-se the Members presiding the said bench it is post pronouncement but before signing the said final order and it was in the interest of justice that the opportunity to both the parties was given to put-forth their stand about the acceptance or denial of those observations in para 12 of the impugned final order. Once the appellant opted to not to appear for the purpose, the final order of 5 March 2019 is definitely a judgment as was pronounced in the open court which should have been operated since the day of its pronouncement. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

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

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Rachna Gupta, addresses the issue of non-prosecution by the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The respondent's representative mentioned the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the matter, as evidenced by multiple adjournments and the appellant's repeated absence during proceedings. The final order dated 5 March 2019 had already dismissed the appeal, highlighting a divergent view taken by the bench members in a previous decision. Despite several opportunities given to the appellant to address any contradictions between decisions, the appellant consistently failed to appear, citing reasons such as the counsel being out of station. This lack of engagement led the tribunal to conclude that the appellant showed no interest in explaining any contradictions, ultimately resulting in non-prosecution.

The tribunal emphasized that the final order pronounced in open court on 5 March 2019 was a valid judgment, as per the decision in the case of Surender Singh and others versus The State of Uttar Pradesh [1954] 5 S.C.R. 330. The judgment highlighted the importance of the formal pronouncement of a decision in open court, irrespective of subsequent formalities like signing. The tribunal drew support from this legal precedent to assert the validity and finality of the decision made in the appellant's case. Additionally, the tribunal referenced the case of Vinod Kumar Singh versus Banaras Hindu University and others (1988 SCC (1) 80), reiterating the significance of acting upon a judgment pronounced in open court, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a review. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's case had been disposed of in accordance with the findings of the final order, affirming the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's non-prosecution.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's continuous non-prosecution and lack of engagement in addressing any contradictions between decisions. The judgment underscored the importance of formal pronouncement of decisions in open court and the subsequent validity of such judgments, as established by legal precedents. The appellant's repeated absence and failure to participate in the proceedings led to the finality of the decision, as pronounced in the open court, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.