##PAGE1##

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

Service Tax Appeal No. 40790 of 2016

(Arising out of Order in Appeal No.13/2016 dated 28.01.2016 passed by the

Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)

M/s. Sri Jeyam Agency, Appellant

No. 1, North Gate, SS Colony,

Madurai

Vs.

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent

C.R. Building, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,

Madurai 625 002.

APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant

Shri N. Satyanarayanan, 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. 40206/2026

Date of Hearing/Decision 03.02.2026

Per M. Ajit Kumar,

This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal No.

13/2016 dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central

Excise (Appeals), Madurai (impugned order).

2. None appeared for the appellant today and for the previous six

times. We find that the notice issued to the counsel for the appellant

was served on 31.10.2025 and in reply to the letter received from the

counsel stated that they are withdrawing their vakalat due to lack of

communication from the appellant. We find that the notice issued to

the appellant by RPAD have been served on the appellant during the

previous hearing itself and the matter was fixed for hearing today as

last chance. However, we find that today also none appeared for the

2

appellant nor is there any request for adjournment. Hence it appears

that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal remedy

3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayanan

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

b