2024 (11) TMI 876 - AT - Central Excise

Non-appearance of the Appellant or his authorised representative on the dates of public hearing - absence of authorized representative - HELD THAT - Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides that if 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 can set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal. The adjournments can t be given for the mere asking without any serious reason, backed with proof, for the non-appearance of the Appellant or his authorised representative on the dates of public hearing. Thus, 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.

Issues:
1. Failure of the appellant to appear for multiple hearings.
2. Appellant's request for adjournment due to the absence of their authorized representative.
3. Legal principles regarding granting adjournments and dismissal of appeals for default.
4. Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in dismissing appeals for default.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Zinc Sulphate and Magnesium Sulphate, availed duty exemption on procuring sulphuric acid for manufacturing fertilizers. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing duty payment, which was confirmed by the Original Authority. The appellant appealed, alleging a lack of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant failed to appear for multiple hearings, except for one, citing the absence of their representative. The Revenue argued for dismissal due to non-appearance, citing Section 35C of the Central Excise Act and Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

2. The Member observed that the appellant's non-appearance raised questions on both the duty amount and natural justice. The appellant's duty was Rs 1,93,125, and their absence hindered a thorough examination. The Member emphasized the duty of the appellant or their representative to attend hearings diligently. The appellant's repeated non-appearance raised doubts on their seriousness about the appeal, potentially abusing the system. The Member highlighted the importance of adhering to hearing dates and pursuing legal remedies diligently.

3. The Member reviewed letters from the appellant requesting adjournments due to the unavailability of their representative. Despite ample notice and opportunities, the appellant failed to attend most hearings. The Member referenced the Tribunal's decision in a similar case and cited judgments emphasizing the limited granting of adjournments. The Member stressed that courts should not tolerate unnecessary delays or adjournments, as they undermine the judicial process. The Member referenced a Supreme Court case where an appeal was allowed due to non-appearance, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural rules.

4. Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 allows dismissal of appeals for default if the appellant fails to appear without sufficient cause. The Rule also provides a provision for setting aside dismissal if the appellant later satisfies the Tribunal of a valid reason for non-appearance. The Member, considering the statutory provisions and legal precedents, decided to reject the appeal for default under Rule 20. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of following procedural rules and attending hearings diligently.

← Previous Next →