2022 (8) TMI 824 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - This appeal is liable for dismissal on the ground of default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appeal is dismissed under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution due to appellant's default in appearance.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. US/93/RGD/2012 dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II, Mumbai. Despite prior communication from the appellant's counsel about having no instructions from the client and filing a withdrawal memo, the appellant failed to engage a counsel or appear in person for the hearing. The Tribunal noted the lack of seriousness on the part of the appellant in prosecuting their appeal, especially considering the significant delay since the filing in 2012. Citing Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal highlighted the provision allowing adjournments for sufficient cause, albeit limited to three times during the appeal hearing. Additionally, Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was referenced, providing discretion to dismiss an appeal for default in appearance or proceed to decide on merits.

The Tribunal, in adherence to the legal provisions mentioned, found the appeal liable for dismissal due to the appellant's repeated default in appearance, as per Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed under the said rule for non-prosecution. The order was pronounced in the open court, emphasizing the legal consequences of the appellant's failure to actively pursue the appeal.