2022 (7) TMI 1242 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Orders of Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is seen that the matter has been adjourned more than three times. In the interest of justice, the appellants were allowed to appear and present this case before this Tribunal. From the above, it shows that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal before this Forum. Taking note of the Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
Non-appearance of the appellants during multiple scheduled hearings; Application of Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Interpretation of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982; Reference to a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding repeated adjournments; Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution based on the circumstances.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dealt with the issue of non-appearance of the appellants during various scheduled hearings. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had failed to appear on multiple occasions, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing their appeal. The Tribunal referred to Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows for adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, with a limit of three adjournments per party during the appeal hearing. Additionally, Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982 was cited, providing for action in case of appellant's default, including dismissal of the appeal for non-appearance.

The judgment referenced a recent order by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the practice of seeking repeated adjournments. The Apex Court emphasized the importance of timely justice delivery, discouraging the routine granting of adjournments that may lead to delays and affect the litigants' trust in the justice system. The Apex Court highlighted the need for courts to be diligent in providing efficient justice and maintaining faith in the rule of law. The judgment underscored the adverse effects of repeated adjournments on litigants and the justice system's credibility.

Considering the circumstances and the principles outlined in the Apex Court's order, the Appellate Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellants' repeated non-appearance, lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, and the need to uphold the efficiency and credibility of the justice dispensation system. The dismissal was in line with the provisions of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, and the guidance provided by the recent Apex Court judgment on the matter of repeated adjournments.