9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 535 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - No request for adjournment received except one received, on when the matter was listed on 27.09.2019 - HELD THAT - In terms of proviso to Sub Section 1A to Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, CESTAT could have not granted adjournment more than three times to a party during the hearing of appeal. Even for adjourning the matter reasons have to be recorded in writing. In absence of any appearance or request for adjournment even the requirement of recording the reason for granting adjournment can be recorded. Hon ble Supreme Court has in the case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT held that The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. In the present case, it is found it has been adjourned a number of times without a party causing the appearance before the Bench. Such mechanical adjournment sought allowed has been adversely commented upon by Hon ble Supreme Court in the decision referred above. Appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure for the non prosecution.
Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments. 2. Non-appearance of the appellant. 3. Application of Rule 20 for dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution. Summary: Issue 1: Repeated Adjournments The case was listed multiple times on 27.09.2019, 29.01.2020, 18.02.2020, 05.08.2022, and 20.07.2023. Each time, the appellant or their counsel chose to abstain from the hearing. Only on 27.09.2019, a written request for adjournment was received. Sub Section 1A to Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that the Appellate Tribunal may grant adjournments no more than three times to a party during the hearing of an appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal criticized the corrosive effect of adjournments on litigation, emphasizing that the virtues of adjudication cannot be paralyzed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence. Issue 2: Non-Appearance of the AppellantDespite multiple listings, the appellant failed to appear or request adjournments, violating the procedural norms. The Supreme Court's observations in various cases highlight the duty of advocates to attend trials diligently, stressing that non-appearance by counsel cannot be tolerated as it undermines the justice delivery system. The judiciary faces acute delays due to such dilatory tactics, which ultimately affect the right to access to justice and speedy trial. Repeated adjournments can erode litigants' trust in the justice system. Issue 3: Application of Rule 20 for Dismissal of Appeal for Non-ProsecutionRule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure allows for the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for the hearing. Given the repeated non-appearance of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed under Rule 20 for non-prosecution. The judgment underscores the necessity for courts to avoid granting adjournments mechanically and to ensure timely justice to maintain the rule of law and litigants' confidence in the judicial system. Conclusion:In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed as per Rule 20 for non-prosecution.
|
