Repeated non-appearance and adjournment abuse justified dismissal of the appeal for default under tribunal procedure rules.

Repeated adjournments at the appellant's request and non-appearance on the fixed hearing date justified rejection of the appeal for default. The Tribunal held that an appellant must prosecute the appeal with reasonable diligence, and that persistent absence without adequate cause permits exercise of discretion under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory restriction on repeated adjournments under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rejected the appeal accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be rejected for default because the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing.

Analysis: The appeal had already been adjourned on three earlier occasions at the appellant's request, and on the hearing date no one appeared for the appellant. The Tribunal held that an appellant is expected to prosecute the appeal with reasonable diligence and that repeated non-appearance, without adequate cause, justified exercise of discretion under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Reliance was also placed on the statutory restriction against repeated adjournments under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The appeal was rejected for default.

---