9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 177 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - adjournment of matter beyond three times - HELD THAT - In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod 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.' 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Request for Adjournment 2. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 3. Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 4. Misuse of Adjournments Detailed Analysis: 1. Request for Adjournment: The Counsel for the appellant repeatedly requested adjournments, which were granted on several occasions. The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates: 17.08.2023, 22.09.2023, 08.03.2024, 21.03.2024, and the current date. Despite these opportunities, the appellant's counsel continued to seek adjournments, either in person or through letters. The Tribunal noted that the requests for adjournment were mechanical and without substantial justification, leading to delays in the proceedings. 2. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35C (1A) allows the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, but limits the number of adjournments to three per party. The text of the section is as follows: "35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal. - (1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal." 3. Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982: Rule 20 addresses the action to be taken in case of the appellant's default. It provides the Tribunal with the discretion to either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. The rule states: "Action on appeal for appellant's default. - Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits: Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal." 4. Misuse of Adjournments: The Supreme Court has condemned the misuse of adjournments in various judgments. In the case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod, the Supreme Court highlighted the detrimental impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system. The Court emphasized that such practices are an "insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases." The Court also referenced other cases, such as Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, to illustrate the negative effects of adjournments on the judicial process and the importance of timely justice. Conclusion: In light of the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely justice and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the judicial process. Order: The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
|
