Order Date – 05 January 2023

Parties: M/s. Shiv Shakti Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. Shiv Shakti Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., and others sought adjournment and none appeared on many earlier occasions.

Issue – 

• Whether the appeals can be adjourned for several times?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that when the appellants are called for last chance the appellant company and its director by their letter dated 02.01.2023 sought adjournment stating that they wish to hire additional advocate. As directed by the Bench on 09.11.2022, no medical certificate has been produced.
• Section 35 C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1962 provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.
• The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court has in case of Ram Siromani Tripathi, which dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution as the learned counsel does not know anything about the case. In the present case also when the counsel who is present today asked to argue the matter, but he has expressed his inability to do so.
• The Tribunal held that in such cases as per Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. Thus it dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.