2024 (2) TMI 298 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - adjournment of matter beyond three times - Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - In case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal s Hon ble Supreme Court has observed 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. 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adjournment Requests
2. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution

Summary:

Adjournment Requests:
The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates: 16.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 20.10.2023, 15.01.2024, and 24.01.2024. The appellant was absent on all these dates without any request for adjournment. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allows the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, but limits such adjournments to a maximum of three times. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, permits the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear on the hearing date.

Dismissal for Non-Prosecution:
The Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod condemned the misuse of adjournments and emphasized that repeated adjournments are an insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases. The Court cited multiple precedents, including Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, and others, highlighting the detrimental impact of adjournments on the justice delivery system. The judiciary must avoid granting adjournments in a routine manner to maintain the litigant's confidence in the system.

Conclusion:
Given the appellant's repeated absence and the statutory limit on adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification for further adjournments. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)