2023 (5) TMI 774 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses appeal for default & non-prosecution. Emphasizes procedural compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to the appellant's repeated ... Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court has in case of ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT] held 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. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. The appeal is dismissed for default and non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Issues:Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal that was initially dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to the appellant's failure to appear despite multiple listing dates. The Tribunal observed the appellant's lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed it accordingly. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for restoration, citing reasons for non-appearance, including the advocate's failure to attend without prior notice. The Tribunal, satisfied with the explanation, restored the appeal. Despite restoration, the appellant continued to face issues with appearances, seeking adjournments on multiple occasions. The Tribunal highlighted Rule 20, which allows for dismissal of an appeal for default if the appellant fails to appear without a valid reason. Additionally, the judgment referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery and discouraging repeated adjournments that may undermine litigants' trust in the legal system. Ultimately, considering the history of adjournments and non-appearance, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and non-prosecution, in line with Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly regarding appearances and prosecution of appeals. It serves as a reminder of the consequences of repeated non-appearance and the impact it can have on the efficiency and credibility of the justice delivery system. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal for default aligns with the legal framework outlined in Rule 20, which provides for such action in cases of non-prosecution. The reference to the Supreme Court's observations further emphasizes the need for courts to prioritize timely justice and avoid granting adjournments routinely, highlighting the potential consequences of delay on litigants' trust in the legal system. By upholding the dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal reinforces the importance of procedural compliance and the efficient administration of justice to maintain the rule of law and public confidence in the judiciary.