CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No MUN-CUSTM-000-COM-05-06-19-20 dated 19.06.2019 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-MUNDRA]

Aman Anand …. Appellant Aman Impex, Delhi, R/O C-4/6, Model Tower, 1st Floor, Backside, Delhi - 110009 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Mundra .... Respondent Office of the Principal Commissionerate of Customs, Port User Buld. Custom House Mundra, Mundra Kutch, Gujarat -370421 WITH (i)CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10183 of 2020-DB (Aman Anand) (ii) CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10269 of 2020-DB (Sai Exports) (iii) CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10215 of 2021-DB (Sai Exports)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No MUN-CUSTM-000-COM-05-06-19-20 dated 19.06.2019 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-MUNDRA]

APEARANCE :

None, for the Appellant Shri Aakash Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA,MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING/DECISION: 12.03.2026 FINAL ORDER NOS. 10274-10277/2026 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

Matter has come up several times earlier on 24/08/2023, 22/12/2023, 12/09/2025, 28/11/2025, 22/01/2026 and today it is 6^th time. There is also no request for entertaining appeals on merits either.

2.0 Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides as follows-

“35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.

(1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.”

RULE 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provide as follows:-

Action on appeal for appellant’s default. — Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits :

Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal.

3.0 In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod [Order dated September 20, 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.14117-14118 of 2021] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal’s Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 of 2021 and M.P. No.108 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.

…

4. As observed hereinabove, present is a classic example of misuse of adjournments granted by the court. It is to be noted that the respondents herein – original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit as far as back in the year 2013. That thereafter despite the repeated adjournments sought and granted by the court and even twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and even the cost was imposed, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. Although the adequate liberty was given to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, they never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayer