2024 (5) TMI 1336 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of appeal - adjournment of matter beyond three times - 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 that 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. Adjournments and their misuse.
2. Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.

Summary:

Adjournments and Their Misuse:
The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates: 12.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024, and the current date. On all these occasions, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, were cited, which limit adjournments to a maximum of three times and allow for dismissal of the appeal for default if the appellant does not appear. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's condemnation of the misuse of adjournments in the case of Ishwar Lal Mali Rathod, emphasizing that repeated adjournments are an "insult to justice" and "concept of speedy disposal of cases." The judgment also cited other cases such as Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, highlighting the detrimental impact of adjournments on the justice delivery system and the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and judges.

Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution:
Given the repeated non-appearance of the appellant 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 CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Conclusion:
The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limits on adjournments and the ethical duty of legal professionals to avoid dilatory tactics. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to appear, reinforcing the principle that the justice system must not be abused through repeated adjournments.