2025 (9) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 after repeated, unjustified adjournments and failure to use granted opportunities

M/s S.S. Roadlines Versus Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Lucknow

M/s S.S. Roadlines Versus Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Lucknow - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether repeated adjournments sought by a party can be granted beyond the statutory limit under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for non-appearance/default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. 3. Whether mechanically sought and routinely granted adjournments constitute misuse of process and warrant dismissal for non-prosecution. 4. The extent of the professional duty and responsibility of advocates in relation to attendance and avoidance of dilatory tactics, and the consequences flowing from counsel's non-appearance. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity and application of Section 35C(1A) (statutory limit on adjournments) Legal framework: Section 35C(1A) empowers the Appellate Tribunal to grant adjournments 'if sufficient cause is shown' and provides that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court authorities condemning routine adjournments (cited decisions) to contextualise statutory constraints on indulgence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed Section 35C(1A) as a mandatory ceiling on the number of adjournments a party may be granted during hearing, subject to the party showing sufficient cause; repeated ad hoc indulgence contrary to the statutory maximum is unjustified. The statutory limit is intended to curb delay and protect speedy disposal of appeals. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the statutory limit of three adjournments is binding on the Tribunal and cannot be routinely exceeded; Obiter - policy observations about judicial culture and the need for change in adjournment practices drawn from precedents. Conclusion: There was no justification to grant adjournments beyond the statutory maximum; the Tribunal must enforce the three-adjournment limit unless exceptional and sufficient cause is shown. Issue 2: Dismissal for non-appearance under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 Legal framework: Rule 20 permits the Tribunal, in its discretion, to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, or alternatively hear and decide it on merits; it also provides a remedial mechanism to set aside dismissal for sufficient cause. Precedent treatment: The Court invoked general principles from higher courts about controlling adjournments and non-appearance; those authorities support enforcement of procedural rules to prevent dilatory tactics. Interpretation and reasoning: Non-appearance after multiple adjournments, with only repeated requests for adjournment and no adequate explanation, constitutes default within Rule 20. Given the statutory cap on adjournments and the adverse effect of delay on access to justice, dismissal for non-prosecution is an appropriate exercise of discretion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 20 authorises dismissal for default where a party persistently fails to prosecute after opportunities; Obiter - discussion of the remedial power to restore appeals where sufficient cause is shown. Conclusion: The appeal was properly dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 where repeated adjournments were sought and no sufficient cause was furnished to prevent dismissal. Issue 3: Misuse of adjournments and impact on justice delivery (routine/mechanical adjournments) Legal framework: Judicial discretion to grant adjournments is informed by statutory limits and the imperative of speedy justice; repeated adjournments undermine timely adjudication and may be curtailed. Precedent treatment: The Court extensively relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence condemning routine or mechanical adjournments (including categorical observations in multiple decisions) and treated those authorities as controlling on the need to curb dilatory practice. Interpretation and reasoning: Repeated and mechanical adjournments were characterised as misuse of discretion that contributes to mounting arrears and erosion of litigant confidence. The Court adopted the precedents' reasoning that adjournment culture must be curtailed and that courts/tribunals should be proactive to ensure effective progress on each hearing date. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - routine granting of adjournments without sufficient cause is impermissible and may justify dismissal for default; Obiter - broader policy exhortations regarding changing work culture and preserving faith in the justice system. Conclusion: Granting adjournments in a routine manner is condemnable; absent sufficient and exceptional cause, repeated adjournments can be refused and may lead to dismissal for non-prosecution. Issue 4: Duty and responsibility of advocates regarding attendance and consequences of non-appearance Legal framework: Professional duties of advocates include attending hearings and cooperating with the court to ensure efficient disposal; where non-appearance is attributable to counsel, consequences may follow against the litigant and, in appropriate cases, against the advocate. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on precedents emphasising the advocate's obligations (advocate in loco parentis, duty to attend, potential liability for damages or costs) and invoked cases holding advocates accountable for dereliction affecting the client. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated non-appearance or dilatory tactics by counsel as a breach of professional duty that undermines the administration of justice. While courts should be courteous to the Bar, advocates cannot ask courts to refrain from performing judicial functions by non-cooperation. Where non-appearance causes prejudice, the litigant may be mulcted in costs and may have a remedy against the advocate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - advocates owe a duty to attend and not to engage in tactics that delay justice; Obiter - remedial suggestions about seeking costs from advocates and suing for damages are illustrative of existing remedies. Conclusion: Counsel's non-appearance and advocacy of repeated adjournments are unacceptable; consequences (including dismissal for non-prosecution, costs, and potential action against the advocate) are justified where such conduct impedes timely adjudication. Cross-references Issues 1-3 are interlinked: the statutory cap under Section 35C(1A) (Issue 1) informs the exercise of discretion under Rule 20 (Issue 2) and underpins the condemnation of routine adjournments (Issue 3). Issue 4 (advocate's duty) explains one common cause of repeated adjournments and supports the imposition of consequences contemplated under Issues 1-3. Final Conclusion of The Court (expressed as legal outcome) In light of the statutory restriction on adjournments, the jurisprudence condemning routine adjournments, and the Tribunal's procedural rule permitting dismissal for default, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as an appropriate exercise of discretion where adjournments had been repeatedly sought without sufficient cause.