Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-maintainability.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to the appellant's continuous non-appearance at scheduled hearings. Additionally, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the disputed amount was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 2,00,000. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal based on these grounds.

---

---

Issues:
- Non-appearance of the appellant during multiple scheduled hearings
- Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982
- Threshold limit under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
1. Non-appearance of the appellant: The appellant failed to appear for the scheduled hearings on various dates despite prior notices. The Tribunal noted the lack of interest shown by the appellant in pursuing their appeal, as evidenced by their repeated absence. This non-appearance was a crucial factor in the subsequent decision.

2. Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982: Rule 20 empowers the Tribunal to take action when the appellant does not appear for the hearing. The rule allows the Tribunal to either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. In this case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-appearance, as per the observations made on 07.06.2022.

3. Threshold limit under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35B(1) provides the Tribunal with the authority to refuse to admit an appeal if the disputed amount falls below a specified threshold. In this instance, the amount involved in the appeal was found to be below the threshold limit of Rs. 2,00,000 as prescribed by the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal non-maintainable and decided to dismiss it on this ground.

4. Final Decision: Considering the appellant's continuous non-appearance, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Additionally, the appeal was found to be non-maintainable under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to the disputed amount being below the prescribed threshold limit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on these grounds.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the relevant legal provisions applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal based on the facts presented before them.

---