2025 (3) TMI 503 - AT - Service Tax

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

M/s Sadan Engineering Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur

CESTAT Allahabad dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution after multiple adjournments exceeded the statutory maximum of three. The tribunal cited SC ... Adjournment of matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - 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. 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.' 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 revolve around the procedural conduct of appeals, specifically focusing on the appellant's repeated failure to appear for hearings and the misuse of adjournments. The Tribunal needed to decide whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's absence and repeated adjournment requests, and how the statutory limitations on adjournments should be applied.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Appellant's Repeated Absence and Adjournment Requests- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, govern the Tribunal's discretion to grant adjournments and dismiss appeals for default. The statute limits adjournments to three per party unless sufficient cause is shown. Precedents from the Supreme Court, such as in the cases of Ishwar Lal Mali Rathod and Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., emphasize the detrimental impact of excessive adjournments on the justice system.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the appellant's continuous absence and failure to prosecute the appeal effectively. Citing the statutory limit on adjournments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules to prevent delays in justice. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court decisions condemning the misuse of adjournments and the resulting delays in the justice delivery system.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the appellant was absent on multiple hearing dates without valid justification and had already exhausted the maximum allowable adjournments. The Tribunal relied on the procedural history of the case and the appellant's conduct to determine the absence of sufficient cause for further adjournments.- Application of Law to Facts: By applying Section 35C(1A) and Rule 20, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's repeated absence and lack of prosecution justified dismissing the appeal. The statutory framework provided clear guidance on limiting adjournments, which the appellant failed to respect.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not record any competing arguments from the appellant, as there was no appearance or submission made on their behalf. The Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the procedural rules and the appellant's conduct.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for their repeated absence and had exceeded the statutory limit on adjournments.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal stated, 'In view of the above, 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 respected to ensure the timely administration of justice. The Tribunal highlighted the judiciary's role in preventing procedural abuses that delay justice.- Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, due to the appellant's failure to appear and misuse of the adjournment process.