TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these appeals pertain to the year 2016 and has come up for hearing on five occasions earlier on 25.03.2025, 30.05.2025, 05.08.2025, 11.09.2025 and 07.10.2025. 2. Shri N. Satyanarayana, learned Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Ld. A.R. has submitted 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. Ld. A.R has further contended that as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, the Tribunal has the discretion to dismiss the appeal for default. Ld. A.R. strongly urged that given the disinterested approach of the appellant, the matter ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal. 5. In the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD VERSUS GOPAL AND ORS, 2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT, the Honourable Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunals. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "5. Grant of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects ultimately the justice delivery system as such came to be considered by this court in catena of decisions and asking/grant of repeated adjournments have been repeatedly condemned by this court. 5.1 In the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 67....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit-whether the plaintiff or the defendant-must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril." 6. It is seen that; the Apex Court has thereafter gone on to hold as under: "5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough its counsel. We are of the view that if we were to decide the matter on merits, without having the benefit of hearing the appellant and upon such hearing if we were to hold against the appellant, then, having no locus to review our own judgement since we would be rendered functus officio, we 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 lack of representation today. Considering the statutory position and the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement supra that adjournments can't be given for the mere asking wi....