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.