2020 (6) TMI 15 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Sab-ka-viswas (legacy dispute resolution scheme) 2019 - HELD THAT - The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution - If the appellant has indeed not applied for SVLDRS and also wishes to pursue it, they may file an application for restoration of appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Non-appearance of the appellant in multiple hearings, Appellant's alleged participation in Sab-ka-viswas (SVLDRS) scheme, Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical), dealt with a case where the appellant failed to appear in several hearings. The records indicated a consistent pattern of non-appearance by the appellant, despite multiple opportunities granted by the Tribunal. The appellant was absent in hearings on 09.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 15.10.2019, 14.11.2019, 5.12.2019, and January 2020, with the Tribunal even providing a specific last opportunity in January 2020. However, the appellant did not show up for any of these hearings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

Regarding the appellant's alleged participation in the Sab-ka-viswas (SVLDRS) scheme, the learned Authorized Representative informed the Tribunal that the appellant had opted for the scheme but had not submitted any papers to the Registry. In light of this information, the Tribunal considered the factual scenario and decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. However, the Tribunal also provided a chance for the appellant to restore the appeal if they had indeed not applied for SVLDRS and wished to pursue it further. This decision highlighted the importance of compliance and active participation in legal proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes such as appeal dismissal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the significance of timely appearance, compliance with legal procedures, and active participation in hearings. The dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution underscored the consequences of repeated non-appearance by the appellant despite multiple opportunities provided by the Tribunal. The reference to the SVLDRS scheme added a layer of complexity to the case, with the Tribunal allowing the appellant a chance to rectify the situation by filing an application for restoration if they intended to pursue the appeal further. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence and adherence to legal requirements in the judicial process.