Adjournment limits in CESTAT proceedings can justify dismissal for non-prosecution when repeated requests exceed the statutory cap.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and bars granting adjournment more than three times during hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules also authorises dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear or does not proceed with the hearing. Where an appeal has been repeatedly listed and the appellant has only sought adjournments, no further time is justified beyond the statutory maximum, and dismissal for non-prosecution is proper.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of repeated requests for adjournment and the statutory bar on granting adjournment more than three times.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment for sufficient cause but prohibits granting adjournment more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 also authorises dismissal of an appeal for default where the appellant does not appear or does not proceed with the hearing. The matter had already been listed on multiple occasions and the appellant had only sought adjournments. In these circumstances, no justification existed for granting further time beyond the statutory maximum.

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

---