Non-prosecution in CESTAT appeals may justify dismissal where the appellant repeatedly defaults and seeks no adjournment.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act limits repeated adjournments and requires recorded reasons before granting them, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure permits dismissal of an appeal for default or non-prosecution where the appellant remains absent and seeks no adjournment. The text emphasises that repeated non-appearance can justify dismissal and reflects judicial disapproval of routine adjournments that delay adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant repeatedly failed to appear and sought no adjournment.

Analysis: Sub-section (1A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 restricts repeated adjournments and requires reasons to be recorded for granting them. The appellant remained absent on multiple hearing dates and no adjournment request was made on subsequent occasions. In these circumstances, Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure permitted the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or non-prosecution. The Tribunal also noted the judicial disapproval of routine adjournments and the need to prevent delay in adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

---