Statutory adjournment limits and non-appearance can justify dismissal for non-prosecution when no sufficient cause is shown.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only on sufficient cause and not more than three times during hearing of an appeal, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. Where the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments, remained absent on the last two dates, and made no adjournment request on the hearing date, the Tribunal found no basis to grant any further indulgence and treated the appeal as liable to dismissal for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant remained absent and repeatedly sought adjournments beyond the statutory limit.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause being shown and not more than three times to a party during the hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 authorises the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on, to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear it on merits. In the present matter, the appellant had repeatedly sought adjournments, no appearance was made on the last two dates, and no request for adjournment was made on the date of hearing. The Tribunal found no justification to grant any further adjournment.

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

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended against the appellant, and the Tribunal declined to keep the appeal alive any further.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory ceiling on adjournments has been exhausted and the appellant remains absent without sufficient cause, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

---