KOVAAI SILICATES Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is the appellant herein. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention through the adjournment letters enclosed at pages 52 to 63 of the typed set of papers filed herein. The perusal of the particulars contained therein would reveal that the case was between 15-6-2011 and 3-6-2013 adjourned on 8 occasions out of which the adjournments granted at the instance of the assessee was on three occasions. The assessee through his learned counsel on record, submitted due applications on all the three occasions, seeking adjournment for different reasons and on the remaining occasions, the case was taken up on the dates other than the hearing dates and stood adjourned to future date and the same was then intimated to the counsel on record at Chennai. However, the case was from 23-1-2013 adjourned to 11-3-2013 on the ground that the advocate's mother-in-law expired and he had to attend 10th day ceremony on 23-1-2013 and the case on 23-1-2013 was adjourned to 3-6-2013 due to Advocates' boycott. Thereafter, an adjournment was sought for on the ground that the counsel was not available by four weeks and the said request was rejected saying that similar ground was put forth for seeking adjournment on earlier occasion and that shows, the appellant was not interested in proceeding with the matter. By observing so, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

(3.) As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, considering the number of adjournments already granted in the case and the number of occasions on which the case was adjourned at the instance of the appellant/assessee and having regard to the different reasons, which were compelling in nature for which the adjournment were sought for, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and ought to have considered granting one more opportunity to the appellant/assessee to prosecute its case. There is absolutely no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The first respondent/Tribunal by dismissing the appeal by observing so deprived the assessee of its right to prosecute the appeal on merits. As such, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court and the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration and the substantial questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the first respondent/Tribunal and the matter is remanded back for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. The appellant/assessee is directed to co-operate with the Tribunal for earlier disposal of the appeal, without seeking further adjournments. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.