Repeated non-appearance and statutory adjournment limits justified dismissal for non-prosecution before CESTAT.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause and caps adjournments at three for a party. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 also allows dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear, or hearing on merits. On repeated non-appearance, multiple prior adjournments, and no effective steps to prosecute the matter, the Tribunal found the explanation insufficient for any further adjournment. It refused additional indulgence and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be adjourned again or dismissed for non-prosecution in view of repeated non-appearance and earlier adjournments.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only on sufficient cause and limits adjournments to not more than three times for a party. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 authorises dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear, or the appeal may be heard on merits. The request for adjournment was considered against the record of multiple prior listings, repeated adjournments, and absence of effective steps to prosecute the appeal. The explanation offered was found insufficient to justify further adjournment beyond the statutory limit.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entitled to any further adjournment and was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended against the appellant because the Tribunal declined to extend indulgence any further and brought the appeal to a close for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute limits adjournments and the appellant repeatedly fails to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal may refuse further adjournment and dismiss the appeal for default or non-prosecution.

---