Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 535 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - No request for adjournment received except one received, on when the matter was listed on 27.09.2019 - HELD THAT:- In terms of proviso to Sub Section 1A to Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, CESTAT could have not granted adjournment more than three times to a party during the hearing of appeal. Even for adjourning the matter reasons have to be recorded in writing. In absence of any appearance or request for adjournment even the requirement of recording the reason for granting adjournment can be recorded. Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT] held that The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. In the present case, it is found it has been adjourned a number of times without a party causing the appearance before the Bench. Such mechanical adjournment sought allowed has been adversely commented upon by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred above. Appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure for the non prosecution.
|