2024 (3) TMI 589 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Request for adjournment, which cannot be accepted in virtual hearing - While making the request for virtual hearing, Counsel also undertakes that he will not seek adjournment in this matter - HELD THAT - It is also observed that the matter has been listed on the request of the Counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 16.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 20.10.2023 and for today. The Counsel for the appellant either in person or through the letter has only sought taking adjournments in the matter. 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. In fact it can be said that the petitioner defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Request for Adjournment
2. Legal Provisions on Adjournment Limits
3. Supreme Court Observations on Adjournment Practices
4. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution

Summary:

1. Request for Adjournment:
The Counsel for the appellant repeatedly requested adjournments, which were granted on 16.08.2023, 15.09.2023, and 20.10.2023. Despite the appellant's undertaking not to seek further adjournments during virtual hearings, another request for adjournment was made, leading to the current decision.

2. Legal Provisions on Adjournment Limits:
Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, limits adjournments to three times during the hearing of an appeal, provided sufficient cause is shown. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default or decide it on merits if the appellant does not appear.

3. Supreme Court Observations on Adjournment Practices:
The Supreme Court, in Ishwar lal Mali Rathod and other cases, condemned the misuse of adjournments, emphasizing that repeated adjournments hinder the justice delivery system. The Court highlighted the detrimental impact of adjournments on timely justice and the professional ethics of lawyers, stressing that such practices are an insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases.

4. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution:
Given the statutory limit of three adjournments and the appellant's failure to proceed despite multiple opportunities, the Tribunal found no justification for further adjournment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's repeated requests for adjournments beyond the statutory limit, reflecting the Tribunal's adherence to legal provisions and the Supreme Court's stance against dilatory tactics.