Dismissal for non-prosecution is impermissible without statutory power; appeals must be decided on merits despite non-appearance.

A Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to dismiss a department's appeal for non-appearance or non-prosecution unless a statute or rule expressly authorises that course. Where no legal provision requires representation before the appellate authority, the appeal must be decided on merits despite absence of either side. The dismissal for non-appearance was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could dismiss the department's appeal for non-appearance and non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, when the appellant was unrepresented, had earlier been exercised by the Tribunal under Rule 20 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, but no such power was available to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of any legal provision requiring the department to be represented before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal had to be decided on merits notwithstanding non-appearance of either side.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the department's appeal for non-appearance was unsustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no statutory power authorises dismissal for non-prosecution, the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits even if the appellant or respondent remains unrepresented.

---