Non-prosecution in appeal: repeated absence and limited adjournments justified dismissal for default.

Repeated non-appearance by an appellant can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution where the record shows no active pursuit of the matter. The Tribunal noted the appellant's absence on multiple hearing dates, including the date of order, and applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments beyond three occasions, together with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not being prosecuted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the appellant's repeated non-appearance and the limited scope for adjournment under the applicable procedural rules.

Analysis: The appellant did not appear on the dates fixed for hearing, including the date of the order. The Tribunal noted the repeated non-appearance on several earlier dates and referred to Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which restricts adjournments beyond three occasions to a party during the hearing of an appeal. The Tribunal also relied on Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal of an appeal for default when the appellant does not appear. In light of the repeated defaults and the absence of any indication that the appeal was being actively prosecuted, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

---