Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution: Importance of timely adjudication & advocates' duty

The appeal was dismissed under Rule 20 for non-prosecution due to the appellant's repeated adjournments and non-appearance, violating procedural norms and delaying justice. The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication, criticized the corrosive effect of adjournments on litigation, and highlighted the duty of advocates to attend trials diligently to uphold the justice delivery system. The judgment underscores the need to avoid granting adjournments mechanically and ensure prompt justice to maintain litigants' trust in the judicial process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments.
2. Non-appearance of the appellant.
3. Application of Rule 20 for dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.

Summary:

Issue 1: Repeated Adjournments

The case was listed multiple times on 27.09.2019, 29.01.2020, 18.02.2020, 05.08.2022, and 20.07.2023. Each time, the appellant or their counsel chose to abstain from the hearing. Only on 27.09.2019, a written request for adjournment was received. Sub Section 1A to Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that the Appellate Tribunal may grant adjournments no more than three times to a party during the hearing of an appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal criticized the corrosive effect of adjournments on litigation, emphasizing that the virtues of adjudication cannot be paralyzed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence.

Issue 2: Non-Appearance of the Appellant

Despite multiple listings, the appellant failed to appear or request adjournments, violating the procedural norms. The Supreme Court's observations in various cases highlight the duty of advocates to attend trials diligently, stressing that non-appearance by counsel cannot be tolerated as it undermines the justice delivery system. The judiciary faces acute delays due to such dilatory tactics, which ultimately affect the right to access to justice and speedy trial. Repeated adjournments can erode litigants' trust in the justice system.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 20 for Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution

Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure allows for the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution if the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for the hearing. Given the repeated non-appearance of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed under Rule 20 for non-prosecution. The judgment underscores the necessity for courts to avoid granting adjournments mechanically and to ensure timely justice to maintain the rule of law and litigants' confidence in the judicial system.

Conclusion:

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed as per Rule 20 for non-prosecution.

---