TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after exceeding statutory three-adjournment limit under Section 35C(1A) Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>Project Manager, Construction Unit-3, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Versus Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow</h3> CESTAT Allahabad dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution after granting adjournments beyond the statutory limit of three times under Section 35C(1A) of ... Adjournments beyond the statutory limit of three times as per Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - non prosecution od appeal in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal’s Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed '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.' Conclusion - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the Appellate Tribunal should grant further adjournments beyond the statutory limit of three times as per Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 due to the appellant's repeated absence without sufficient cause.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Adjournment Beyond Statutory LimitRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, limits the number of adjournments that can be granted to a party during the hearing of an appeal to three. The Tribunal is required to record reasons in writing for any adjournment granted.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the statutory limit on adjournments, noting that no justification exists for exceeding the maximum number of adjournments allowed by law.Key evidence and findings: The appellant was absent on multiple hearing dates (25.10.2024, 03.12.2024, 06.01.2025, and 28.02.2025) without any request for adjournment, indicating a pattern of non-appearance.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory limit, highlighting that the appellant's repeated absence without sufficient cause did not warrant further adjournments.Treatment of competing arguments: The judgment did not present competing arguments from the appellant, as they were absent and did not provide any justification for their non-appearance.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that further adjournments were not justified, adhering to the statutory limit and the principles of timely justice.Issue 2: Dismissal for Non-ProsecutionRelevant legal framework and precedents: 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 day fixed for hearing or on any adjourned date.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal exercised its discretion under Rule 20, considering the appellant's repeated non-appearance as a default and opting to dismiss the appeal.Key evidence and findings: The consistent absence of the appellant across multiple hearing dates without any adjournment requests or sufficient cause was a key factor.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Rule 20, determining that the appellant's conduct constituted a default, justifying dismissal of the appeal.Treatment of competing arguments: The absence of the appellant meant there were no arguments presented against dismissal, and the Tribunal acted within its discretion.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear and prosecute the case.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'We do not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory limits on adjournments must be adhered to, and that repeated non-appearance without sufficient cause can lead to dismissal for non-prosecution.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that no further adjournments were warranted beyond the statutory limit, and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's repeated absence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
