9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws expressed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the various judgments cited above, we find that no purpose would be served in continuing with this appeal and hence reject the same for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) None for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per M. Ajit Kumar When the matter came up for hearing on 5.4.2024, it was observed that there was no one to represent the appellant. It is seen from case proceedings that this appeal pertains to the year 2014 and has come up for hearing on three earlier occasions. The noting in the order sheets of thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunals website. After filing an appeal, due diligence mandates 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. To be unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, would also be contrary to public inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanand 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
|
