Repeated adjournments and non-appearance justify dismissal for non-prosecution when no sufficient cause is shown.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause and limits it to three occasions during hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 also allows the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear on the fixed date, to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. On repeated absence, no fresh request for adjournment, and failure to produce the medical certificate earlier directed, the Tribunal found no justification for further indulgence and held the appeals liable to dismissal for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant remained absent and no further adjournment was justified after repeated earlier adjournments.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause being shown and limits such adjournments to not more than three times during hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 authorises the Tribunal, when the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, either to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear and decide it on merits. The absence of any fresh request for adjournment, coupled with failure to produce the medical certificate earlier directed and the fact that adjournments had already been granted on multiple occasions, left no justification for further indulgence. The Tribunal also relied on the settled disapproval of routine and mechanical adjournments.

Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution and were dismissed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated adjournments cannot be granted beyond the statutory limit, and where the appellant defaults in appearance without sufficient cause, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

---