2025 (4) TMI 835 - AT - Customs

Misuse of adjournments by parties during the appellate proceedings specifically in the context of the Central Excise Act 1944 and the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 - whether repeated requests for adjournments without sufficient cause could justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution? - 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 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. 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.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core issue considered in this judgment is the misuse of adjournments by parties during the appellate proceedings, specifically in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal examined whether repeated requests for adjournments without sufficient cause could justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. Additionally, the judgment considered the statutory limits on the number of adjournments permissible under Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Misuse of Adjournments:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, 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 that the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant fails to appear when called for hearing. The Tribunal can also decide the appeal on merits or restore it if the appellant later shows sufficient cause for non-appearance.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the statutory limit on adjournments and highlighted the importance of adhering to these limits to prevent delays in the justice delivery system. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court decisions condemning the practice of granting adjournments mechanically, which contributes to delays and undermines the efficacy of the judicial process. The Tribunal noted that repeated adjournments without sufficient cause are detrimental to the concept of speedy justice.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had sought multiple adjournments and was absent on the day of the hearing. The appellant had already been granted adjournments on several previous occasions, exceeding the statutory limit of three adjournments.

- Application of Law to Facts: Applying Section 35C (1A) and Rule 20, the Tribunal found no justification for further adjournments beyond the statutory limit. The appellant's repeated requests for adjournments without sufficient cause constituted an abuse of the process, warranting dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not find any compelling arguments or sufficient cause presented by the appellant to justify further adjournments. The absence of the appellant on the hearing date further weakened any potential argument for additional adjournments.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear and the excessive number of adjournments requested without sufficient cause.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal upheld the principle that adjournments should not be granted mechanically and must be limited as per statutory provisions to prevent delays in the justice delivery system. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules to maintain the integrity and efficiency of judicial proceedings.

- Verbatim Quote: "I do not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided."

- The Tribunal's decision underscores that failure to adhere to statutory limits on adjournments and non-appearance without sufficient cause can result in dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution.

- The judgment reflects the judiciary's broader concern with ensuring timely access to justice and discouraging dilatory tactics that undermine the rule of law.