9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndates that the Appellant follow up on the matter and make himself available on the date of hearing either in person or by his Authorized representative. Persons with good causes of action should pursue the remedy with reasonable diligence at every available opportunity. Hence there is reasonable ground to think that the non-appearance was occasioned by the Appellant as he is not serious about the appeal and is deliberately trying to gain time. It is a well-accepted position that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. Tribunal in the case of Pankaj Vs. CCE [ 2023 (12) TMI 910 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] which has heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a party during the hearing of the appeals. He further stated that as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. Hence, he strongly prayed that the matter may be dismissed for default. He also drew attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pankaj Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2023 (12) TMI 910 CESTAT Allahabad], a copy of which was also furnished by him. 3. We have gone through the appeal papers and find that one of the notice issued to the appellant has been retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thanand Anr. (213) 5 SCC 202, etc and has concluded that there is no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The extract from the judgment of Shiv Cotex (supra), is succinct and worth reproducing. It was held as under:- 14. Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? 15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek and the courts grant adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
