Adjournment limits and non-prosecution in tax appeals: repeated absence can justify dismissal when no sufficient cause is shown.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only on sufficient cause and bars more than three adjournments to a party during hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules also allows dismissal for default or decision on merits where the appellant does not appear. On repeated absence and no adequate justification for further delay, the Tribunal may refuse any additional adjournment and dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be adjourned beyond the statutory limit of three adjournments and, on the appellant's repeated absence and failure to prosecute the matter, whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only if sufficient cause is shown and expressly bars grant of adjournment more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 further authorises the Tribunal, when the appellant does not appear, to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. The request for adjournment was viewed against the background of several earlier adjournments already granted, and no justification was found to continue the matter beyond the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be adjourned further, and dismissal for non-prosecution was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with rejection of further adjournment and termination of the appeal for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute caps adjournments at three and the appellant persists in seeking further adjournment without sufficient cause, the Tribunal may decline adjournment and dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

---