Adjournment of hearing — Genuine ground for adjournment necessary — Central Excise Act, 1944, S. 35B.

12. Adjournment of hearing — Genuine ground for adjournment necessary — Central Excise Act, 1944, S. 35B.

[Commissioner of C.Ex. Jaipur-II v. Shri Ram Steel Inds., (2010) 258 ELT 154 (Trib.) (Del.)]

When the case was adjourned by the Tribunal on the last occasion the parties were represented by their advocates and the date was given with the consent of the advocates. It was specifically made known to the representatives of the parties that the matter would not be adjourned any further. On the next date of hearing none were present on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter ex-parte and decided the Department’s appeal on merits.

A letter seeking adjournment was received after completion of the hearing and delivery of order in the open Court. The adjournment was sought on the ground that ring ceremony of niece had to be attended on the day fixed for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the application was without substance as date was fixed with the consent of the parties and adjourned on several occasions. The Tribunal also observed that the ground disclosed in application can never be a ground for adjournment.

Further, the representatives of parties were not entitled to presume that the Tribunal would be obliged to adjourn the matter the moment request for the same is sent. The practice of seeking adjournment by sending application by post or by courier or by faxing was highly objectionable. Adjournment is not a matter of right. Nobody can take the Tribunal for granted and presume and assume that matter would be adjourned the moment request for the same is made. Genuine ground for adjournment is necessary. Further, the order on adjournment is always in the discretion of the Tribunal and the same is to be exercised judiciously. Application for adjournment was rejected.