2024 (5) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - matter adjourned beyond three times - Refund claim - rejection of appeal for non-compliance and non-replying to the Deficiency Memo - HELD THAT - Now before us the Appellant has not shown any urgency in having the matter heard and disposed of. Adjournments can t be given for the mere asking without any serious reason backed with proof for non-appearance of the Appellant or his authorised representative. Considering the statutory position and the views expressed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the various judgments cited above, we find that no purpose would be served in continuing with this appeal and hence reject the same for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved: Non-appearance of the Appellant for hearing, repeated adjournments, dismissal of appeal for default.

For the issue of non-appearance of the Appellant for hearing, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant had sought adjournments on multiple occasions without valid reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that after filing an appeal, it is the duty of the Appellant or their representative to appear before the Tribunal when the appeal is scheduled for hearing. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of diligence in pursuing legal remedies and criticized the lackadaisical approach of the Appellant, stating that the accrued rights of the opposite party cannot be taken lightly. The Tribunal also reminded legal counsel of their professional responsibility to represent clients promptly.

Regarding the repeated adjournments, the Tribunal referred to Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments to three times during appeal hearings. The Tribunal also mentioned Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which allows dismissal of an appeal for default if the Appellant fails to appear on the scheduled date. The Tribunal cited a previous decision and concluded that adjournments should not be granted without valid reasons, as excessive adjournments can delay the judicial process and erode public trust in the legal system.

In the context of dismissing the appeal for default, the Tribunal reviewed the case where a refund claim was rejected due to discrepancies in documentation. Despite the rejection and subsequent appeal dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellant did not show urgency in pursuing the matter further. Citing relevant legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that litigants do not have the right to abuse legal procedures by seeking unnecessary adjournments. Considering the statutory provisions and judicial views, the Tribunal decided to reject the appeal for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, as continuing with the appeal would serve no purpose.

In summary, the Tribunal addressed the issues of non-appearance, repeated adjournments, and dismissal of the appeal for default by emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings, limiting adjournments to maintain the efficiency of the judicial process, and upholding the integrity of legal procedures to ensure timely resolution of disputes.