Repeated absence before CESTAT and adjournment limits justified dismissal for non-prosecution under procedural rules.

Repeated absence of the appellant before CESTAT, together with the statutory limit on adjournments, justified dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, noting that adjournments are permissible only within prescribed limits and that default dismissal is authorised where the appellant does not appear. It also held that repeated adjournments beyond the statutory maximum were not justified, so the appeal was liable to be dismissed for default.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, in view of the appellant's repeated absence and the statutory limit on adjournments, was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been called on multiple dates and no one appeared for the appellant. It referred to the statutory scheme under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which permit adjournments only within limits and authorize dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear. The Tribunal also emphasised that repeated adjournments beyond the statutory maximum were not justified.

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

---