Non-prosecution after restoration can justify dismissal for default when the appellant again fails to appear.

Where an appellant remains absent after restoration of an appeal and no cause is shown for non-appearance, the Tribunal may dismiss the matter for default rather than grant further adjournment. Relying on Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, the article states that repeated delay and non-prosecution justify termination of the appeal at the threshold. The practical effect is that the restored appeal can be dismissed when the appellant does not appear and the record shows no communication explaining the absence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non prosecution when the appellant remained absent after restoration of the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal had already been restored after an earlier dismissal for non-compliance. On the date fixed after restoration, no one appeared for the appellant and no communication was received. The Tribunal noted that the matter was old and that repeated adjournments and delay were not justified. Referring to Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, the Tribunal held that the appellant's absence justified dismissal for default rather than further adjournment.

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

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended at the threshold on a procedural default by the appellant, leaving the dismissal to operate against the appellant and in favour of the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant remains absent after restoration and no cause is shown for non-appearance, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default under its procedural powers.

---