Non-prosecution in CESTAT proceedings can justify dismissal when repeated absence continues and no sufficient cause is shown.

Under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, adjournments are restricted and time may be granted only on sufficient cause, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear on the hearing date. Where the appellant remained absent on repeated dates, made no adjournment request, and showed no sufficient cause, the matter need not be kept pending further and the appeal is liable to dismissal for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant remained absent on repeated dates of hearing and no adjournment request or sufficient cause was shown.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments and permits time only on sufficient cause being shown, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 authorises dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. The appellant had remained absent on multiple listed dates, no request for adjournment was made on the date of hearing, and the maximum permissible indulgence for adjournments had already been exceeded. In these circumstances, there was no justification to keep the matter pending further.

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

---