S. 35C(1A) of Central Excise Act Limits Adjournments to Three: CESTAT dismisses Appeal for Non-Prosecution [Read Order]
CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after repeated adjournments exceeded the legal limit under the Central Excise Act
![S. 35C(1A) of Central Excise Act Limits Adjournments to Three: CESTAT dismisses Appeal for Non-Prosecution [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/23/2067998-central-excise-act-adjournments-cestat-appeal-taxscan.webp "S. 35C(1A) of Central Excise Act Limits Adjournments to Three: CESTAT dismisses Appeal for Non-Prosecution [Read Order]")
M/s Alcons Infratech vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service TaxThe Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that an appeal cannot be adjourned more than three times under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act and persistent non-appearance by the appellant justifies dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. Alcons...
M/s Alcons Infratech vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service TaxThe Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that an appeal cannot be adjourned more than three times under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act and persistent non-appearance by the appellant justifies dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Alcons Infratech, the appellant, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), but failed to appear during multiple hearings. Despite being given over twenty hearing dates since 2018, including 26.11.2018, 20.02.2020, 13.09.2023, and 07.01.2025, the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments or failed to appear altogether.
On one occasion, the appellant’s counsel appeared only to request more time to file a fresh vakalatnama but did not follow proper procedure. Despite several opportunities and notices sent by post and email, neither the appellant nor their representative appeared for final arguments.
The revenue counsel argued that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution as per Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, and Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, which limits adjournments to a maximum of three per party.
The bench, comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) observed that the appellant failed to show any interest in pursuing the appeal, and the delay was not justified.
The tribunal explained that the tribunal cannot allow proceedings to be delayed indefinitely and cited the Supreme Court’s strong disapproval of repeated adjournments in the case of Ishwar Lal Mali Rathod.
The tribunal held that the statutory limit on adjournments had been exceeded and that there was no valid reason to keep the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The appeal was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
