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>Appeals Dismissed for Non-Appearance; Emphasizes Need for Valid Reasons Under Rule 20 of CESTAT Rules 1982</h1> <h3>Stickwell (I) Pvt Ltd. and Sajal Impex Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Chennai</h3> The Court dismissed the appeals for default due to the appellant's non-appearance at the hearing, as permitted under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, ... Dismissal of appeal for default due to the appellant's non-appearance at the hearing - applicability of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Benny D'Souza & Ors vs Melwin D'Souza & Ors [2023 (11) TMI 1309 - SC ORDER], heard an appeal wherein the major contention of the appellant was that the High Court should have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in terms of the order XLI Rule 17 CPC and particularly the Explanation thereto instead of dismissing the appeal on merits. The Hon’ble Court after extracting Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC held that the Explanation to the Order categorically states that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits and went on to allow the appeal. Considering the statutory position and the views expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the various judgments, adjournments can’t be given for the mere asking without any serious reason, backed with proof, for the non-appearance of the Appellant or his authorised representative on the dates of public hearing. we find that no purpose would be served in continuing with these appeals and hence reject the same for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Appeal disposed off. The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the appeals should be dismissed for default due to the appellant's non-appearance at the hearing.2. The applicability of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in dismissing appeals for default.3. Comparison of the legal provisions with relevant precedents, particularly the interpretation of Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benny D'Souza & Ors vs Melwin D'Souza & Ors.The Court considered the absence of the appellant at the hearing, the statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act and CESTAT Rules, and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents to reach its decision.The Court noted that the appellant had not appeared for the hearing despite multiple opportunities and a notice sent to the provided address. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the matter should be dismissed for default based on Section 35C of the Central Excise Act and Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.In analyzing the legal framework, the Court referred to Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which allows for the dismissal of appeals for default if the appellant fails to appear at the hearing. The Rule also provides for the restoration of the appeal if the appellant later satisfies the Tribunal that there was a valid reason for non-appearance.The Court then cited the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benny D'Souza & Ors vs Melwin D'Souza & Ors, where the Court interpreted Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court highlighted that the Explanation to the Order specifies that an appeal can only be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant does not appear at the hearing, not on merits.Based on the statutory provisions and legal precedents, the Court concluded that adjournments cannot be granted without a valid reason supported by evidence for the appellant's non-appearance. Therefore, the Court rejected the appeals for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.The significant holdings of the judgment include the Court's adherence to the legal provisions and precedents in dismissing the appeals for default due to the appellant's continuous non-appearance. The Court emphasized the importance of following the rules and providing valid reasons for adjournments to ensure the proper administration of justice.In summary, the Court considered the appellant's non-appearance, relevant legal provisions, and precedents to dismiss the appeals for default in accordance with Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, and the interpretation of Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
