IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Customs Appeal No. 170 of 2011 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 04/2011 (Customs) Commissioner dated

07.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem)

Dr. S. Shanmugasundaram Appellant S/o Sri V.V. Subramaniya Chetty No. 15/96, Chinnampatti Road Ellampalli, Salem – 637 502.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment Trichy – 620 001 APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant Smt. O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon’ble Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO. 40037/2026 Date of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 Per M. Ajit Kumar, This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Original No.

04/2011 (Customs) Commissioner dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem (impugned order).

2. None appeared for the appellant. We find that the matter has been adjourned on eleven occasions for non-appearance of the appellant either personally or through any authorized representative. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to state his case in person or thorough his authorised representative. Hence it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal remedy.

3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. O.M. Reena appeared for the respondent and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution as per Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

4. We note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal & Others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1411714118 OF 2021, dated: 20.09.2021 / LL 2021 SC 500], while condemning the practice of seeking repeated adjournments has observed as follows:

“5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal b