Case Details: Ram Lal Contractor Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur (2026) 42 Centax 418 (Tri.-All)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
- Request for adjournment, for the Appellant.
-
Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant sought an adjournment before the Tribunal in order to obtain documents from various government departments. The appellant intended to rely upon these documents in the appeal proceedings. The documents sought to be produced were not available at the stage of adjudication or during the first appeal. This request for adjournment was presented before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that an adjournment cannot be granted for obtaining documents that were not available at the stage of adjudication or the first appeal. It was further held that production of such documents is akin to establishing questions of fact, which ought to have been undertaken at the earliest stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the request for adjournment was not accepted.
List of Cases Cited
- A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A.Subburaj Chettiar — (2015) 17 SCC 713 — Relied on [Para 2.4]
- Javedbhai v. Sikandarali Kasamali Kureshi — 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 3987 — Referred [Para 2.5]
- K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. — (2007) 14 SCC 257 — Relied on [Para 2.2]
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lal Pancham — AIR 1965 SC 1008 — Referred [Para 2.2]
- Roots Multiclean Ltd. v. CESTAT — 2016 (336) E.L.T. 25 (Madras) — Relied on [Para 4.4]
- Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand — (2022) 7 SCC 247 — Referred [Para 2.5]
- State of Gujarat v. Mahendra Kumar Parshottambhai Desai — AIR 2006 SC 1864 — Referred [Para 2.2]
- State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya — (2014) 13 SCC 468 — Relied on [Para 2.3]
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin — (2012) 8 SCC 148 — Referred [Para 2.5]
