Adjournment limits and non-prosecution dismissal apply when an appellant repeatedly fails to appear after repeated opportunities.

Adjournment in a CESTAT appeal is limited to sufficient cause and not more than three occasions under the Central Excise Act, while the Tribunal may dismiss a matter for default when the appellant does not appear. Repeated absence on multiple hearing dates and prior adjournments exhausted the permissible discretion, leaving no basis for any further adjournment. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non prosecution where the appellant repeatedly failed to appear despite several adjournments, and whether further adjournment could be granted beyond the statutory limit.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and not more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 empowers the Tribunal, when the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, to dismiss the appeal for default or hear it on merits. The appellant remained absent on multiple listed dates and had already been granted repeated opportunities. In these circumstances, no justification existed for granting any further adjournment beyond the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly dismissed for non prosecution.

---