2026 (1) TMI 785 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal for default under CESTAT Procedure Rules; adjournments unsupported by proof lead to dismissal, restoration permitted.

CESTAT procedure on dismissal for default is examined: repeated adjournments without satisfactory justification or proof justify dismissal for default, as ... Dismissal of appeal for default - grant of adjournment for more than three times to a party during the hearing of the appeals - HELD THAT:- Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules provides that if the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing can set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal. There is no request on record for the appeal to be decided on merits ex-parte based on the grounds preferred in the appeal in the absence of the appellant’s presence or representation through its counsel - If the matter was to be decided on merits, without having the benefit of hearing the appellant and upon such hearing, if it was to hold against the appellant, then, Tribunal having no locus to review own judgement since Tribunal is rendered functus officio, the Tribunal would thus be not only depriving the appellant of a chance to be heard, but also would be relegating the appellant to seek appropriate remedy in a higher judicial forum, if at all the appellant has justifiable reasons for repeated non representation and also for lack of representation today. The 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, thus no purpose would be served in continuing to keep this appeal pending - the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal that has been preferred and that the appeal is thus liable to be dismissed for default. This appeal is dismissed for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file for restoration of the appeal showing sufficient justifications and reasons while seeking such restoration. Issues: Whether the appeals should be dismissed for default due to repeated non-appearance/ non-prosecution by the appellants.Analysis: The appeals concern repeated adjournments and multiple earlier hearing dates with no representation of the appellants and returned notices. The Tribunal considered Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (limiting adjournments) and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (power to dismiss an appeal for appellant's default), and relied on higher court authority discouraging mechanical grant of adjournments. The Tribunal noted absence of any request to decide the matter on merits ex parte and the availability of restoration if sufficient cause is later shown.Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed for default for non-appearance; the decision is adverse to the appellants.