2024 (11) TMI 1126 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeal for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Request for adjournment by the appellant.
2. Statutory limitations on granting adjournments under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Tribunal's discretion under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
4. Judicial observations on the misuse of adjournments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Request for Adjournment by the Appellant:

The appellant's counsel repeatedly requested adjournments for the hearing scheduled on multiple dates, including 30.05.2024, 10.07.2024, 04.10.2024, and the present date. The tribunal noted that the counsel consistently sought adjournments and highlighted that this was the third request for adjournment. The tribunal had previously warned that no further requests for adjournment would be entertained beyond the last adjournment granted.

2. Statutory Limitations on Granting Adjournments:

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal may grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, but no party shall be granted more than three adjournments during the hearing of an appeal. This statutory provision was cited to emphasize the legal limitation on the number of adjournments that can be granted, underscoring the tribunal's adherence to this rule.

3. Tribunal's Discretion Under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982:

Rule 20 provides that if an appellant does not appear on the scheduled hearing date, the tribunal has the discretion to either dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. The rule also allows for the restoration of an appeal if the appellant later appears and shows sufficient cause for their non-appearance. In this case, the tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, as the appellant failed to appear and did not provide sufficient justification for further adjournment.

4. Judicial Observations on the Misuse of Adjournments:

The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions condemning the misuse of adjournments, emphasizing that repeated adjournments are detrimental to the justice delivery system. The tribunal cited cases such as Ishwar Lal Mali Rathod and Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., highlighting that adjournments should not be granted routinely or mechanically, as they delay justice and undermine public confidence in the legal system. The judgment stressed the importance of timely justice and the adverse impact of adjournment culture on the rule of law.

Conclusion:

In light of the statutory limit on adjournments and the tribunal's discretion under Rule 20, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The tribunal's decision aligns with judicial precedents condemning the misuse of adjournments and reinforces the need for efficient justice delivery.