2025 (10) TMI 266 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20: mechanical adjournment request without corroboration denied as meritless

M/s Fusion Fitness Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow

CESTAT, Allahabad dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The bench found the adjournment request to ... Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - Seeking adjournment in the matter - application for request of adjournment not supported by any document - HELD THAT:- It is found that adjournment application has been made in most mechanical manner and is not supported by any document viz medical certificate certifying that the appellant is unwell and and has been advised bed rest. There are no merits in the application made by the appellant and reject the same. In case of Shri Ram Steel Industries Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 416 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] Delhi Bench observed that 'Adjournment is not a matter of right. Nobody can take the Tribunal for granted and presume and assume that matter would be adjourned moment there is a request for the same. There has to be a genuine ground for adjournment of a matter. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the order in that regard is always in the discretion of the Tribunal which is to be exercised judiciously. Nobody can insist for adjournment of hearing.' The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an adjournment sought by counsel on the ground of illness without supporting medical documentation merits grant when previous opportunity was expressly made the last opportunity. 2. Whether repeated or mechanical requests for adjournment by counsel justify rejection and sanction, having regard to principles limiting adjournments and the duty of courts to prevent delay. 3. Whether the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under the applicable procedural rule when the appellant (through counsel) fails to appear after having been granted a last opportunity. 4. What legal standards and authorities govern exercise of discretion in granting or refusing adjournments (including applicability of Order 17 CPC provisions, relevant procedural rules, and high court/Supreme Court jurisprudence condemning routine adjournments). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Adjournment on ground of counsel's illness without supporting medical evidence Legal framework: The Tribunal's procedure rule governing appellant's default permits dismissal for non-appearance or hearing on merits in its discretion, subject to setting aside if sufficient cause is later shown; Order 17 CPC principles outline conditions and limits on adjournments (including provisos requiring sufficient cause and restricting adjournments where pleader's engagement elsewhere is relied upon; illness must be such that another pleader could not have been engaged). Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon prior tribunal and Supreme Court pronouncements condemning mechanical adjournment applications and requiring objective support (e.g., medical certificate) for illness claims; such authorities were followed and applied. Interpretation and reasoning: An adjournment request premised on counsel's illness was not accompanied by any medical certificate or corroborating material; the application was treated as mechanical and routine. Given that the earlier listing had been expressly treated as the last opportunity, and absent documentary proof satisfying the Tribunal that sufficient cause existed (and that another pleader could not have been engaged), the Court found no merit in the application and rejected it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An adjournment predicated on counsel's illness must be supported by objective evidence (e.g., medical certificate) and satisfy the provisos of Order 17 CPC before it can be granted, particularly where a last opportunity has been given; mechanical or unsupported claims of illness do not constitute sufficient cause. Obiter - Emphatic policy comments on the role of advocates and their duty towards timely conduct of cases, while grounded in precedent, serve as guidance rather than novel legal proposition. Conclusions: The adjournment request based solely on an unsigned/verbal illness claim without documentary support was properly rejected; parties and their counsel must furnish objective proof to substantiate illness-based adjournments, especially after a last opportunity has been granted. Issue 2 - Repeated or mechanical adjournments and the duty of the Tribunal to prevent delay Legal framework: Principles derived from Order 17 CPC, procedural rules of the Tribunal, and recommendations stressing full utilization of court hours constrain routine adjournments. The Tribunal's discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent abuse and ensure timely justice. Precedent treatment: The Court repeatedly cited and followed higher-court authority condemning habitual adjournments as corrosive of the justice delivery system, holding that adjournment is not a matter of right and that courts must resist routine indulgence. These authorities were treated as binding guidance for the exercise of discretion. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated the policy that repeated adjournments delay justice, erode public confidence, and may unjustly prejudice other parties. Where prior opportunities (including last chances) had been given, and where adjournment requests are stereotyped or lacking bona fide support, the Tribunal must refuse further indulgence to prevent misuse of process. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts and tribunals must curtail mechanical or repeated adjournments; adjournments are discretionary and to be granted only for sufficient cause. Obiter - Extended reflections on the social and institutional harms of delay, while persuasive, constitute policy exposition accompanying the ratio. Conclusions: The Tribunal correctly applied the principle that adjournments are not to be granted routinely and that judicial officers must be vigilant against dilatory tactics; refusal was warranted in the circumstances. Issue 3 - Power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution under procedural rule and standards for restoration Legal framework: The Tribunal's procedural provision permits dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear, but also permits the Tribunal to hear on merits; where dismissal occurs, restoration is available upon showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. Precedent treatment: The Court treated prior tribunal authority as supportive of exercising discretion to dismiss for non-prosecution when counsel fails to appear after last opportunity and when adjournment requests lack merit; Supreme Court authority warning against repeated adjournments was followed as explanatory of the circumstances in which dismissal is appropriate. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the absence of counsel despite a last opportunity and an unsupported adjournment application, the Tribunal invoked its discretion under the procedural rule to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The Court observed that reinstatement remains available if the appellant later satisfies the Tribunal that sufficient cause existed for non-appearance; however, no such showing was before the Tribunal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an appellant fails to appear after an expressly final opportunity and offers an unsupported/merely mechanical explanation, the Tribunal may dismiss for non-prosecution under its procedural rule; restoration is contingent on later satisfactory proof of sufficient cause. Obiter - Discussion of restorative measures and costs as remedies against counsel may be regarded as ancillary guidance. Conclusions: Dismissal for non-prosecution under the procedural rule was appropriate in the circumstances; the procedural safeguard of restoration remains available upon satisfying the Tribunal of sufficient cause. Issue 4 - Applicability and role of Order 17 CPC and related authorities in guiding adjournments in appellate tribunals Legal framework: Order 17 CPC's provisions limiting adjournments (including provisos forbidding adjournments except where circumstances beyond control, restrictions regarding pleader's engagement elsewhere, and requirements when illness is claimed) were invoked as the guiding legal standard; Tribunal procedure rules supplement these principles. Precedent treatment: The Court drew upon Law Commission recommendations and Supreme Court pronouncements that endorse strict application of Order 17 principles, and followed tribunal decisions applying these norms to reject routine adjournments and to dismiss for non-prosecution when warranted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated Order 17 CPC principles as applicable by analogy and as embodying the policy that adjournments must be granted sparingly and only on sufficient cause. The Court applied these standards to the facts (last opportunity given; lack of documentation for illness), finding the standards unmet. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Order 17 CPC principles, and the disciplinary jurisprudence enforcing them, apply as controlling guidance for the exercise of discretion on adjournments in tribunals; courts must require evidence of sufficient cause and ensure that illness or other personal reasons do not automatically entitle a party to adjournment. Obiter - Broader exhortations regarding judicial culture and the Bench-Bar relationship are persuasive commentary supplementing the ratio. Conclusions: The Tribunal properly relied on Order 17 CPC principles and allied authority to reject a mechanical adjournment request and to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution; these authorities mandate restraint in granting adjournments and promote timely disposal of matters.