2019 (6) TMI 724 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Proper Representation: Importance of Authorization in Legal Proceedings

M/s Software Technology Parks of India Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Noida

The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD due to the lack of proper representation and authorization by the appellant's counsel, ... Request for adjournment - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- It was with great difficulty and by observing that the matter has regularly been coming up on board from 2014 onwards. In fact, it was once dismissed for non-prosecution and stands subsequently restored and as the appeal is of 2009, the matter was adjourned in the interest of natural justice. It was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted and in the absence of the appellant’s representative, the same would be dismissed without any further notice to them. In such a scenario, the presence of the advocate cannot be recognized - the appellants are not serious in pursuing the appeal - Appeal dismissed. Issues: Lack of proper representation and authorization by the appellant's counsel leading to dismissal of the appeal.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, the issue revolved around the lack of proper representation and authorization by the appellant's counsel, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's counsel, Shri Vikas Mani Srivastava, appeared without the necessary authorization to represent the appellant. The Tribunal noted that on a previous hearing, the counsel had requested an adjournment as a proxy-counsel without the required Vakalatnama or authorization. Despite the Tribunal's warning that no further adjournments would be granted, the counsel appeared again without proper authorization, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the second time due to the absence of proper representation.The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proper authorization and representation in legal proceedings, emphasizing that appearing without the necessary documents and authorization from the appellant or previous counsel cannot be recognized. The Tribunal expressed concern over the appellant's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal, especially considering the history of the case dating back to 2009 and facing dismissal for non-prosecution previously. Despite the Tribunal's efforts to ensure natural justice and provide opportunities for representation, the repeated lack of proper authorization led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment serves as a reminder of the essential requirement of proper representation and authorization in legal proceedings to uphold the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.