2024 (11) TMI 1044 - AT - Service Tax

Request for adjourning the matter beyond three times - HELD THAT -The reason for seeking adjournment is that the fire took place in the office of Counsel in the year 2021 i.e. more than three years from today. Even from 2021 this matter has been listed five times in the year of 2024, as stated in para-1 above. If Counsel for the appellant was really serious about the matter, there was enough time to reconstruct the file or get the relevant documents from registry or from the appellant, for this reason also this request cannot be considered. 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. Request for adjournment due to missing case files.
2. Repeated adjournments and non-appearance of the appellant.
3. Legal provisions and precedents concerning adjournments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Request for Adjournment Due to Missing Case Files:

The appellant's counsel requested an adjournment citing that a fire in 2021 had destroyed the office, leading to the loss of case files, including submissions in the adjudication and first appeal. The counsel sought a certified copy of the appeal memo and attachments for case preparation and requested a short date for the hearing. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant had ample time since 2021 to reconstruct the file or obtain necessary documents from the registry or the appellant. The tribunal found no justification for adjourning the matter further, especially since the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in preparing the case.

2. Repeated Adjournments and Non-Appearance of the Appellant:

The tribunal observed that the appeal had been listed multiple times in 2024, specifically on 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 05.07.2024, 30.08.2024, and 28.10.2024, with the appellant either seeking adjournments or failing to appear. The tribunal highlighted that the appellant's counsel had either sought adjournments or was absent on call, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The tribunal emphasized that the request for adjournment could not be accepted as it exceeded the statutory limit of three adjournments provided under Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Legal Provisions and Precedents Concerning Adjournments:

The tribunal referred to Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments to three times unless sufficient cause is shown. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, allows the tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear. The tribunal cited precedents from the Supreme Court condemning the misuse of adjournments, which delay justice and affect the efficacy of the judicial process. The tribunal noted that repeated adjournments without sufficient cause are detrimental to the justice delivery system and emphasized the need for timely justice.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear and pursue the appeal diligently, as per Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and avoiding unnecessary delays in the justice delivery system.