The Allahabad bench of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed appeal due to violation of Rule 20, as maximum of three adjournments permitted during appellate hearings.
The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause was shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.
The Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provided that Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his nonappearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal
In case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Order dated September 20, 2021 in Special Leave Petition ( Civil ) Nos.14117-14118 of 2021] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal’s Supreme Court has observed Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court.
Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff‘s witness.
in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner – defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown
In fact it can be said that the petitioner – defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
The single member bench comprising Sanjive Sreevastava ( Technical member ) did not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. The Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
