TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturers of agricultural grade zinc sulphate and magnesium sulphate, the appellants were procuring sulphuric acid without payment of central excise duty availing the exemption under Sl. No. 32 of the Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. As per the entry at Sl. No. 32, of the above said Notification, sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertilizers were exempted from the whole of central excise duty subject to the condition No. 2 specified in the Annexure to the notification viz. that the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 should be followed. The entry at Sl. No. 35 of the above Notification No. 4/2006-CE granted duty exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment. But for the other dates of hearing i.e. 13.12.2023, 9.2.2024, 15.3.2024, 5.7.2024, 13.8.2024, 26.9.2024, none appeared for the hearing nor was there any request for adjournment. 4. Shri Sanjay Kakkar, learned Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue. He has stated that as per Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a party during the hearing of the appeals. He further stated that as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. Hence, he strongly prayed that the matter may be dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, would also be contrary to public interest. 6. I find that the appellant had taken notice of the date of hearing being fixed. Letter Ref. SFC/CESTAT/23-24 dated 13/03/2024 received from the appellant is reproduced below; "We received your above referred notice on 13.3.2024 at our end and wherein you asked us to appear for final hearing on 15.3.2024. The appellant most respectfully submits that, our learned consultant Mr. M.K. Guha Neogi, who is to defend the case on our behalf is at Kolkata and Sick and on medical ground he is not able to appear before your honour on the aforesaid specified date. In the above circumstances, the appellant pray for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? 15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek-and the courts grant-adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realise that adjournments do dent th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. Explanation. - Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits." held that the Explanation to the Order categorically states that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits and went on to allow the appeal. [Also see: Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs Makhan Lal - AIRONLINE 2012 SC 322; Abdur Rahman & Ors Vs Athifa Begum & Ors - AIRONLINE 1996 SC 621; Musaliarakath Muhamad Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manav....