Adjournment Not a Matter of Right: CESTAT Refuses to Entertain Late E-mail Request after Pronouncing Order in Open Court [Read Order]
The tribunal highlighted that adjournment was not a matter of right and that parties cannot presume a matter will be adjourned simply because a request was sent via e-mail, especially after the decision has already been pronounced in open court.
![Adjournment Not a Matter of Right: CESTAT Refuses to Entertain Late E-mail Request after Pronouncing Order in Open Court [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/12/30/2115836-adjournment-not-a-matter-of-right-cestat-refuses-to-entertain-late-e-mail-taxscan.webp "Adjournment Not a Matter of Right: CESTAT Refuses to Entertain Late E-mail Request after Pronouncing Order in Open Court [Read Order]")
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise andService Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed an appeal and refused a subsequent adjournment request, holding that such requests must be based on genuine grounds, submitted in advance, and did not bind the tribunal to grant them. Purple Products Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) filed an appeal against an Order-In-Appeal dated April 16, 2025, passed...
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise andService Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed an appeal and refused a subsequent adjournment request, holding that such requests must be based on genuine grounds, submitted in advance, and did not bind the tribunal to grant them.
Purple Products Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) filed an appeal against an Order-In-Appeal dated April 16, 2025, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida. The lower authority had dismissed the appellant's case without touching upon the merits because it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal on December 23, 2025, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor was any adjournment request received prior to the hearing.
The single Member Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) proceeded to decide the matter based on the available records and observed that the appellant became aware of the demand via a recovery notice received on August 16, 2021. Despite this "communication," the appeal was only filed over three years later.
The bench held that the delay of nearly 20 months far exceeded the 90-day maximum window (60+30) that the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally empowered to condone.
Relying on Singh Enterprises v. CCE, the tribunal noted that the law of limitation was absolute and Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to override the specific 30 day condonation limit set by the legislature. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
Following the pronouncement of the dismissal in open court, an e-mail was discovered from the appellant’s side requesting an adjournment due to the demise of a relative. The tribunal refused to entertain this request for several reasons.
The bench observed that the e-mail was sent at 09:03 AM on the day of the hearing, rather than in advance. It also observed that the application failed to disclose the specific relationship of the deceased relative or provide any proof.
The tribunal held that once an order was pronounced in open court, subsequent requests for adjournment did not warrant consideration. It cited Shri Ram Steel Industries and noted that the practice of seeking adjournments via fax or e-mail at the last minute was "highly objectionable" and that the discretion to adjourn lies solely with the Bench.
It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. It reaffirmed that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay. The appeal of the appellant and adjournment application was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
