Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

September 2015

2015 (39) STR 24 (Mad.) V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. vs. CESTAT Chennai.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
A Tribunal can grant three adjournments in an appeal and if Tribunal decides the stay application ex-parte before granting three adjournments on the ground that Appellants have adopted dilatory tactics by not appearing and thereby abusing the law, the action of the Tribunal would be too harsh.

Facts:
The department during the adjudication passed an ex-parte order confirming the demand on Appellants. Appellants filed appeal and stay petition before Tribunal. Before the date of hearing on stay application, Appellants sought adjournment by filing request letter. Tribunal granted an adjournment without even taking into account the said request letter on record. Before the next date, Advocate of Appellant requested an adjournment vide a request letter. Tribunal on that occasion overlooked the letter and passed an ex-parte stay order stating that since no plea of financial hardship was taken, Appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs.4 crore and also recorded that the Appellants had not cooperated during the adjudication process and also in the present appeal proceedings which amounted to abuse of the process of law.

Held:
Appellants challenged the said ex-parte order before the High Court stating that the Tribunal is entitled to grant three adjournments to a particular party as per proviso to section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The High Court observed that the Tribunal’s action of deciding the stay petition ex-parte on second adjournment and that too ignoring the Appellants request for an adjournment terming non-appearance as abuse to process of law is too harsh. Accordingly, the case was remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration and directed Appellants not to seek adjournment on the next date.

You May Also Like