2023 (12) TMI 910 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - matter adjourned beyond three times - HELD THAT - In case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD AND SMT. LEELABAI ONE ANOTHER VERSUS GOPAL OTHERS (VICE-VERSA) 2021 (2) TMI 1360 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH 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. 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. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant.
2. Legal provisions regarding adjournments.
3. Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments.
4. Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

Summary:

1. Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant:
The appellant informed their intention to opt for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, leading to multiple adjournments. The matter was listed for hearing on several dates, including 03.12.2019, 18.02.2020, 08.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 24.11.2023, and the present date. Despite appearing on 18.02.2020 and seeking adjournment, the appellant failed to appear on subsequent dates without any request for adjournment.

2. Legal provisions regarding adjournments:
Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal may grant adjournments for sufficient cause but not more than three times. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear on the scheduled hearing date.

3. Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments:
The Supreme Court, in various cases including Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, condemned the practice of seeking and granting repeated adjournments. The Court emphasized that such practices insult justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases. It highlighted that adjournments should not be granted routinely and that the judicial system must ensure timely justice to maintain public confidence.

4. Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution:
Given the appellant's repeated failure to appear and the statutory limit on adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification to adjourn the matter further. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-appearance and the statutory limit on adjournments, emphasizing the judiciary's stance against the misuse of adjournments to ensure timely justice.