2023 (1) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Seeking adjournment of the case - adjournment sought on the ground that the appellant company and its director wish to hire additional advocate - Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court has recently in case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT , condemning the practice of seeking repeated adjournments and courts granting the same mechanically has observed that considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Apex Court and also taking note of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, these appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Issues:
1. Adjournment requests and repeated non-appearance by the appellants.
2. Applicability of Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962.
3. Counsel's inability to argue the matter.
4. Comparison with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Siromani Tripathi.
5. Reference to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod.
6. Interpretation of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982.

1. Adjournment Requests and Non-Appearance:
The judgment addresses the repeated adjournment requests and non-appearance by the appellants despite multiple chances given by the Bench. The appellants sought adjournments on various dates, citing reasons like the unavailability of their counsel or the need to hire additional advocates. Despite clear directives and the absence of medical certificates as required, the matter was called for hearing without substantial progress.

2. Applicability of Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962:
Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962 limits the number of adjournments that can be granted during the hearing of an appeal. The provision allows adjournments only if sufficient cause is shown, with a maximum of three adjournments per party. In this case, the Tribunal highlighted that further adjournments could not be granted based on this statutory provision.

3. Counsel's Inability to Argue the Matter:
The counsel present on the hearing date expressed an inability to argue the case, leading to a standstill in the proceedings. Despite being directed to present arguments, the counsel cited reasons for not being able to proceed, contributing to the lack of progress in the case.

4. Comparison with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
The judgment refers to a previous ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Siromani Tripathi, where the court dismissed appeals for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellants' counsel. The Apex Court emphasized that seeking adjournments without valid reasons should not be entertained, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly.

5. Reference to Recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
The judgment also cites a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, condemning the practice of seeking repeated adjournments. The Apex Court highlighted the adverse impact of delay on the justice delivery system and discouraged the routine granting of adjournments, emphasizing the importance of efficient justice dispensation and maintaining trust in the legal system.

6. Interpretation of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982:
Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982 provides guidelines for action in case of appellant's default, allowing the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default if the appellant fails to appear without valid cause. The judgment, considering the precedents and rules, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution due to the repeated adjournments and lack of progress in the case.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of timely proceedings, adherence to statutory provisions, and the need to avoid unnecessary adjournments to ensure efficient justice delivery and maintain trust in the legal system.

← Previous Next →