Dismissal for non-prosecution is justified when repeated non-appearance continues after the statutory adjournment limit is reached.

Repeated absence of an appellant without sufficient cause can justify dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, especially where the statutory limit on adjournments has been exhausted. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and caps it at three times during an appeal hearing, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows the Tribunal, on non-appearance, either to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. On the stated facts, multiple opportunities had already been granted and no final adjournment request was made, so dismissal for default was treated as justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory limit on adjournments.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause, and the proviso restricts adjournments to not more than three times during the hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 also empowers the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear on the hearing date, either to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear and decide it on merits. The appellant remained absent on multiple dates, no adjournment request was made on the final occasion, and the record showed repeated opportunities having already been granted.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and dismissal of the appeal for default was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant repeatedly defaults in appearance and no sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, particularly after the statutory ceiling on adjournments is reached.

---