9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1135 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - appellant is not responding to the notices for hearing - HELD THAT - From the facts, it is observed that the matter is pending only for the reason that appellant/counsel on record is not responding to the notices for hearing issued making it evident that they are not interested in prosecuting this matter any further. 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. In fact it can be said that the petitioner defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. Appeal is accordingly dismissed for non prosecution.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-appearance and non-prosecution by the appellant. 2. Restoration of the appeal. 3. Repeated adjournments and the legal implications. Summary: Non-appearance and Non-prosecution by the Appellant: The appeal was initially dismissed on 13.09.2018 due to the appellant's repeated non-appearance, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The order stated, "the same is dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to the appellant to apply for restoration on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance."¯ Restoration of the Appeal: The appeal was restored on 18.02.2020 through a Miscellaneous Application, where it was noted, "the hearing notice was received by the appellant on 12.09.2018, fixing the date of hearing as on 13.09.2018 and as such it was not possible for the appellant to honour the date of hearing."¯ The final order was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its original number. Repeated Adjournments and Legal Implications: Despite restoration, the appellant continued to be absent on subsequent hearing dates, including 18.07.2023 and 22.09.2023. The Tribunal observed, "the matter is pending only for the reason that appellant/counsel on record is not responding to the notices for hearing issued making it evident that they are not interested in prosecuting this matter any further."¯ The Tribunal cited Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, emphasizing that adjournments should not be granted more than three times during the hearing of an appeal. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's condemnation of repeated adjournments in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, stating, "Repeated adjournments on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases."¯ Conclusion: Given the appellant's persistent non-appearance and lack of communication, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal underscored the importance of timely justice and the detrimental impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system, as highlighted in several Supreme Court judgments. Operative Part: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with the operative part of the order pronounced in open court.
|
