2025 (3) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution - adjournment of matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal s Hon ble Supreme Court has held that 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. Conclusion - 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue presented and considered in this judgment is the repeated absence of the appellant and the lack of adjournment requests, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The specific questions include:

• Whether the repeated absence of the appellant without any request for adjournment justifies the dismissal of the appeal under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
• Whether the tribunal's decision to limit adjournments aligns with the statutory provisions and established legal precedents regarding adjournments in judicial proceedings.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The tribunal considered Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments if sufficient cause is shown, but limits such adjournments to three times during the hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, provides the tribunal with the discretion to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant is absent.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal noted the appellant's absence on multiple hearing dates without any adjournment requests. The tribunal emphasized that the statutory limit for adjournments had been exceeded, and no justification for further adjournments was provided.

Key evidence and findings: The tribunal's order sheets from previous hearing dates documented the appellant's repeated absence and the tribunal's attempts to provide opportunities for the appellant to appear. Despite these efforts, the appellant failed to attend or request adjournments.

Application of law to facts: The tribunal applied Rule 20, noting that the appellant's absence and lack of engagement with the proceedings justified the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. This application aligns with the statutory limit on adjournments and the tribunal's discretion under the procedural rules.

Treatment of competing arguments: The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's condemnation of the misuse of adjournments in various cases, emphasizing the importance of timely justice and the detrimental impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system.

Conclusions: The tribunal concluded that there was no justification for further adjournments beyond the statutory limit, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The tribunal's significant holdings include the following:

• "In view of the above, we do not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided."
• The tribunal reinforced the principle that repeated adjournments without sufficient cause undermine the justice delivery system and are contrary to the statutory framework.
• The final determination was the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and statutory limits on adjournments.

The judgment underscores the importance of timely participation in legal proceedings and adherence to procedural rules, reflecting broader judicial concerns about the impact of delays on the justice system. The tribunal's decision aligns with established legal principles discouraging unnecessary adjournments and emphasizing the need for efficient case management.