Non-prosecution and adjournment abuse justified dismissal of appeals after repeated absence and no sufficient cause for further delay.

Repeated non-appearance and repeated adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, read with the adjournment limits in Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to attend multiple listings, including the e-hearing date, and gave no request or sufficient cause for a further adjournment. Relying on Supreme Court authority against routine and mechanical adjournments as an abuse that delays justice, it exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeals for default, while noting the proviso permitting restoration if sufficient cause is later shown.

---

---

Outcome: The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellants repeatedly remained absent and no further adjournment was found justified after the statutory limit on adjournments had been exhausted.

---