2019 (11) TMI 482 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeal for lack of participation and non-appearance upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi due to the Appellant's consistent lack of participation and interest in pursuing the ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- Perusal of record shows that since the filing of appeal till date there is no single appearance of the appellant except the repeated written request of the adjournment. Today's absence coupled with the above observation for the conduct of the appellant is sufficient to opine that appellant is not interested in pursuing the impugned appeal - the appeal deserves dismissal for want of prosecution. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. Issues: Lack of prosecution by the AppellantAnalysis:The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Rachana Gupta, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertains to a case where the Appellant failed to appear for the proceedings despite repeated requests for adjournment. The Member noted the absence of the Appellant and observed a consistent lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Citing the conduct of the Appellant, the Member concluded that the appeal should be dismissed due to want of prosecution.Drawing support from a case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Member highlighted the importance of active participation in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that mere absence or lack of preparedness of the counsel is not a valid ground for adjournment. In the absence of a reasonable cause for non-appearance, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, with a clear directive that no application for restoration would be entertained.Based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court case, the Member of the Tribunal followed a similar approach and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the Appellant's consistent failure to actively engage in the proceedings. The decision was made considering the lack of participation and the absence of any valid reasons for the Appellant's non-appearance. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court, highlighting the finality of the decision in dismissing the appeal.