Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 2230
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial), M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)
SVS Food Processors Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
Customs Appeal No. 40950 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kakkar
An appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, if the appellant fails to appear despite repeated opportunities, but such dismissal cannot be treated as a decision on the merits of the case.
Headnote:The matter pertains to an appeal filed under the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal despite repeated adjournments and absence of any request for further time, leading the court to determine that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter. The primary issue was whether the appeal could be decided on merits in the absence of the appellant. Following the reasoning that if an appellant does not appear when the appeal is called, it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits, the court applied the procedural rules for dismissal. Appeal stands dismissed as indicated above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution due to continuous absence of the appellant. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal distinction between dismissal for non-prosecution and dismissal on merits. (Para 2 , 3) |
Per Bench
None for the Appellant, nor is there any request for adjournment. Further, it is seen from the order sheet notings that there has been no effective representation despite repeated adjournments. In view of the above, it appears that the Appellant is neither serious nor interested in pursuing this Appeal and hence, the Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. In this regard, we draw support from the Order of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Benny Dsouza & Ors. vs. Melwin Dsouza & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23809/2023], dated 24.11.2023 wherein, while examining the dismissal of Appeal on merits in the context of Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “…If the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits”.
3. Appeal stands dismissed as indicated above.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
