2023 (9) TMI 1251 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - adjourning the matter beyond three times - HELD THAT - Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law - also whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. 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. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - Appeals are dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adjournment Requests
2. Compliance with Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
3. Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982
4. Precedents and Observations on Adjournment Practices

Summary:

Adjournment Requests:
The appeals were listed for hearing on multiple occasions (04.08.2022, 09.08.2023, 17.08.2023, and 22.09.2023). The appellant's counsel repeatedly sought adjournments due to medical reasons, failing to produce the required medical certificates despite being directed to do so.

Compliance with Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 35C (1A) allows the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, but limits such adjournments to three times per party during the hearing of an appeal. The appellant's requests exceeded this statutory limit.

Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982:
Rule 20 provides that if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. Given the appellant's non-appearance and failure to comply with directives, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.

Precedents and Observations on Adjournment Practices:
The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's condemnation of the misuse of adjournments in cases like *Ishwarlal Mali Rathod* and *Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd.*, emphasizing that repeated adjournments hinder the justice delivery system. The Tribunal stressed the importance of timely justice and the detrimental effects of adjournment culture on the litigant's faith in the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements and the statutory limit on adjournments, as well as the broader judicial principle discouraging undue delays in the justice delivery system.