Repeated adjournments in excise appeals may justify dismissal for non-prosecution once the statutory limit is exceeded.

Under the Central Excise Act, an appeal hearing may be adjourned only for sufficient cause and not more than three times, and the CESTAT Procedure Rules also allow dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. The text states that repeated adjournments beyond the statutory limit were unjustified because no adequate reason was shown to continue the matter further. The practical effect is that, once the adjournment cap is exceeded without sufficient cause, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution or proceed in accordance with the procedural rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be dismissed for non-prosecution after repeated adjournments exceeded the statutory limit.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and not more than three times to a party during the hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 also empowers the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear, to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. The request for further adjournment was found unacceptable because the appellant had already sought adjournments on multiple occasions and no justification existed to continue the matter beyond the statutory cap.

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

---