2023 (12) TMI 1141 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Matter has been listed quite a number of times in the past and appellant has been abstaining from attending the hearing or seeking adjournment - HELD THAT - Today the matter on request has been listed for E-hearing as per the request made by the appellants on 06.11.2023. Appellants has abstained without any request for adjournment. There are no justification for adjourning the matter any further as these appeals have been adjourned more than the prescribed maximum number statutorily provided. The Appeals are dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments.
2. Non-appearance of the appellant.
3. Provisions u/s 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
5. Reference to Supreme Court judgments on adjournments.

Summary:

1. Repeated adjournments:
The appellant repeatedly abstained from attending the hearings or seeking adjournments on multiple dates: 14.08.2019, 05.12.2019, 26.02.2020, 23.03.2023, 11.07.2023, and 06.11.2023. Despite the matter being listed for E-hearing on request, the appellant abstained without any request for adjournment.

2. Non-appearance of the appellant:
The absence of the appellant during the hearing led to the application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which allows the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits if the appellant does not appear.

3. Provisions u/s 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 35C (1A) permits the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown but limits such adjournments to a maximum of three times during the hearing of an appeal.

4. Application of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982:
Rule 20 states that if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. The Tribunal can restore the appeal if the appellant later shows sufficient cause for their non-appearance.

5. Reference to Supreme Court judgments on adjournments:
The judgment referenced multiple Supreme Court cases condemning the misuse of adjournments, emphasizing that repeated adjournments are an insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases. The cited cases include Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., Babu Singh v. State of U.P., Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr., and others, highlighting the detrimental impact of adjournments on the justice delivery system.

Conclusion:
In view of the repeated adjournments beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum and the appellant's non-appearance, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.