9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 917 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant. 2. Application of Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. 4. Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments. Summary: The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates from 2019 to 2023, but the appellant consistently sought adjournments or failed to appear, with no request for adjournment made on the final date. Issue 1: Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stipulates that adjournments may be granted if sufficient cause is shown, but no party should be granted more than three adjournments during the hearing of an appeal. Issue 2: Application of Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing. The rule also provides for setting aside such dismissal if the appellant shows sufficient cause for non-appearance. Issue 3: Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, condemned the practice of seeking and granting adjournments mechanically, highlighting that it leads to delays in the justice delivery system and is an insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases. Issue 4: Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments. The Supreme Court emphasized that repeated adjournments affect the efficacy of the judicial process and that courts must ensure effective progress on every hearing date. The misuse of adjournments was described as a "cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system." In view of the above, the Tribunal found no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times, as statutorily provided, and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
|
