Dismissal for non-compliance follows unrectified defects, non-payment of dues, and repeated default in appeal proceedings.

An appeal may be dismissed for persistent non-compliance where defect memo objections remain unrectified, the appellant fails to appear, and directed duty and penalty payments are not made within the time allowed. The Tribunal treated repeated default, expiry of the compliance period, and the absence of any satisfactory basis for further adjournment as sufficient grounds to refuse to keep the appeal pending and dismiss it under Rule 11(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for failure to remove defects pointed out in the defect memo and for non-deposit of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The appellant did not appear, the defects in the memo remained unrectified for more than eight months, and the duty and penalty were not deposited despite earlier time being granted for compliance. A further request for adjournment was declined in view of the repeated default and the expiry of the time already allowed. On these facts, the Tribunal found no justification to keep the appeal pending.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed under Rule 11(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-compliance.

---