2023 (1) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise
Seeking adjournment of the case - adjournment sought on the ground that the appellant company and its director wish to hire additional advocate - Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court has recently in case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT], condemning the practice of seeking repeated adjournments and courts granting the same mechanically has observed 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.
In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also taking note of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, these appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.