Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after exceeding three-adjournment limit under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982

The CESTAT Allahabad dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution after the matter was adjourned beyond three times, which exceeds the statutory maximum. The tribunal cited SC precedent condemning mechanical adjournments, noting that in a referenced case, ten adjournments were granted between 2015-2019 with repeated "last chance" orders and cost impositions, yet the party failed to utilize the court's grace. The tribunal emphasized there is no justification for exceeding the three-adjournment limit under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant.
2. Legal provisions regarding adjournments.
3. Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments.
4. Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

Summary:

1. Repeated adjournments sought by the appellant:
The appellant informed their intention to opt for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, leading to multiple adjournments. The matter was listed for hearing on several dates, including 03.12.2019, 18.02.2020, 08.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 24.11.2023, and the present date. Despite appearing on 18.02.2020 and seeking adjournment, the appellant failed to appear on subsequent dates without any request for adjournment.

2. Legal provisions regarding adjournments:
Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal may grant adjournments for sufficient cause but not more than three times. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear on the scheduled hearing date.

3. Supreme Court's stance on misuse of adjournments:
The Supreme Court, in various cases including Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, condemned the practice of seeking and granting repeated adjournments. The Court emphasized that such practices insult justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases. It highlighted that adjournments should not be granted routinely and that the judicial system must ensure timely justice to maintain public confidence.

4. Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution:
Given the appellant's repeated failure to appear and the statutory limit on adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification to adjourn the matter further. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-appearance and the statutory limit on adjournments, emphasizing the judiciary's stance against the misuse of adjournments to ensure timely justice.

---