2024 (4) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - time limitation - HELD THAT - Having filed an appeal the Appellant should have intimated the Registry of the change in address if any, for delivery of notice / judgment etc. Moreover, the daily Cause List showing the cases being listed for hearing is available in the public domain on the Tribunals website. After filing an appeal due diligence mandates that the Appellant follow up on the matter and make himself available on the date of hearing either in person or by his Authorized representative. Persons with good causes of action should pursue the remedy with reasonable diligence at every available opportunity. Hence there is reasonable ground to think that the non-appearance was occasioned by the Appellant as he is not serious about the appeal and is deliberately trying to gain time. It is a well-accepted position that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. Tribunal in the case of Pankaj Vs. CCE 2023 (12) TMI 910 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD which has heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT , Babu Singh Vs. State of UP 1978 (1) TMI 171 - SUPREME COURT , Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT , Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand Anr. 2013 (2) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT and has concluded that there is no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. Thus, no purpose would be achieved in continuing with this appeal - appeal dismissed for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT ( Procedure ) Rules , 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Non-appearance of the appellant for hearing the appeal
- Request for adjournment beyond the statutory limit

For the issue of non-appearance of the appellant, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had failed to appear for the hearing despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have taken necessary steps to ensure receipt of notices and should have been diligent in following up on the appeal proceedings. It was observed that the non-appearance seemed deliberate, indicating a lack of seriousness on the part of the appellant. Citing the principle that the accrued right of the opposite party should not be disregarded, the Tribunal concluded that adjourning the hearing further would serve no purpose and would be against public interest.

Regarding the request for adjournment beyond the statutory limit, the Tribunal referred to Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments to a party during appeal hearings. Additionally, Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear for the hearing. The Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Pankaj Vs. CCE, Kanpur, which highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding adjournments. Quoting from previous judgments, the Tribunal stressed the need to prevent abuse of procedural rules and emphasized the importance of courts ensuring effective progress in cases.

Based on the statutory provisions and the principles outlined in previous judgments, the Tribunal decided to reject the appeal for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that continuing with the appeal would serve no purpose, considering the appellant's lack of diligence and the statutory limitations on adjournments.