2024 (5) TMI 1159 - AT - Customs

Seeking restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to consider written request for adjournment - HELD THAT - From the present application, it has come on record that prior the date of impugned final order, the appellant had already moved an application seeking an adjournment on 1st September, 2023, The said application is mentioned to have been received in the registry on 24th August, 2023 itself. As already quoted, the final order has no mention of such application making it clear that the said application was not placed before the Bench on 1st September, 2023. To get verified the actual facts that the inquiry was marked to Registrar, CESTAT in this respect. From Persual of the report, it is clear that there is no satisfactory explanation in the verification report about as to why the adjournment application was not placed on record. Hence, we hold that there is no irregularity or the error in the final order dated 01.09.2023. However, since there is no denial on part of the concerned section of the registry for having received the application seeking adjournment on 24th August, 2023 i.e. prior the date of final order, we hold it to be a fit circumstance to allow appellant-applicant an opportunity to make his submissions on the merits of the case. The interest of justice otherwise requires that lis preferably shall/be decided on merits instead being disposed of on account of technicalities or mere procedural lapses. Accordingly, we hereby allow the said application and order restoration of the present appeal to its original number. Registry is directed to list the appeal on July 02, 2024 for final hearing. It is clarified that no further opportunity shall be given for the purpose.

Summary

Issues involved: Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to consider written request for adjournment.

Summary:
The present judgment deals with the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for want of prosecution without considering a written request for adjournment. The appellant's counsel had sent a request for adjournment on 24.08.2023 due to prior commitments, but the appeal was dismissed on 01.09.2023 as no one appeared for the appellant. The Registrar was directed to investigate why the adjournment request was not presented before the Bench on the date of the final order. The subsequent report revealed that the Court Master failed to bring the adjournment application to the notice of the Bench. Despite certain lacunae in the report, the application seeking restoration of the appeal was heard.

Upon hearing the arguments, it was noted that the impugned final order was passed due to the absence of the appellant on 1st September, 2023, without any request for adjournment. The report from the Registrar confirmed the failure to present the adjournment application before the Bench. However, it was found that the application seeking adjournment was received by the registry on 24th August, 2023. As there was no satisfactory explanation for why the application was not placed on record, the appeal was restored to allow the appellant an opportunity to present their case on the merits. The judgment emphasized deciding the case on its merits rather than technicalities.

In conclusion, the application for restoration of the appeal was allowed, and the appeal was ordered to be listed for final hearing on July 02, 2024, with no further opportunities to be provided.