TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 under Rule 20: mechanical adjournment request without corroboration denied as meritless</h1> 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: Whether the appellant's request for adjournment supported by a non-attending counsel (without medical proof) could be entertained and whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.Analysis: The appeal had been given a last opportunity to be heard. The adjournment request submitted on the next listed date was not supported by any medical certificate or documentary proof and was held to be mechanistic. Precedents and procedural guidance were applied, including limits on routine adjournments, the requirement that adjournments not be granted mechanically, and the discretionary power under Rule 20 to dismiss an appeal if the appellant does not appear on the listed date. Consideration was given to principles limiting adjournments in Order 17 CPC and to the obligation on parties and their counsel to prosecute proceedings diligently.Conclusion: The adjournment application is rejected and the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.Final Conclusion: The procedural consequence is dismissal of the appeal for default where a last opportunity was not availed and no sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance.Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjournment is sought without satisfactory supporting evidence and after a last opportunity has been granted, the Tribunal may, in exercise of its discretion under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, reject the adjournment and dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
