The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of an excise appeal under section 35C of the Central Excise Act,1944.
Hello Mineral Water (P) Ltd, the appellant assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the assessee had given a written request for adjournment of the appeal on 27.09.2019 when the case was listed.
During the hearing of the appeal, none appeared for the assessee and Sarweshwar T. Khairnar appeared on behalf of the department.
The counsel for the department contended that in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, Special Leave to Appeal says that “the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and the Bar, the ability and efficiency of all concerned and ultimately the divinity of law are likely to make way for apathy and indifference when the delay of the present nature takes place, for procrastination on the part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates a catastrophic turbulence in the sanctity of law”.
Further submitted that access to speedy justice was regarded as a human right that was deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right was not only the creation of law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment of all concerned with the system.
The Bench observed that according to Sub-Section 1A to Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act states that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the appeal.
Also held that in terms of 20 of CESTAT procedure Rules, 1982 states that Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits.
A single-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Judicial) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure for the non-prosecution.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
