Statutory limit on adjournments supports dismissal for non-prosecution where the appellant repeatedly fails to appear.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment of an appeal only up to three times on sufficient cause being shown, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 allows dismissal for default or decision on merits when the appellant does not appear. Where the appellant remained absent on successive dates and sought no adjournment, the Tribunal found no basis to extend the matter beyond the statutory limit and treated dismissal for non-prosecution as warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be adjourned beyond the statutory limit and whether repeated absence of the appellant justified dismissal for non-prosecution.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment of an appeal only up to three times on sufficient cause being shown. 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. In the present matter, the appellant remained absent on several consecutive dates and no adjournment request was made. The Tribunal held that there was no justification to extend the matter beyond the statutorily permitted limit.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and the dismissal was warranted.

---