Repeated defaults in appearance can exhaust statutory adjournments and justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution.

Repeated non-appearance by an appellant, together with repeated adjournment requests, can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. Under section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, adjournment is permissible only for sufficient cause and only up to three times during hearing, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. Once the statutory adjournment limit is exhausted and no sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal may refuse further adjournment and terminate the proceeding without going into the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of repeated absence of the appellant and repeated adjournments, and whether the Tribunal could refuse further adjournment beyond the statutory limit.

Analysis: The appeal had been listed on several earlier dates, yet the appellant remained absent or sought adjournment on each occasion. 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. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 authorises dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. In the circumstances, no justification existed for granting any further adjournment beyond the statutory ceiling, and the repeated defaults warranted procedural dismissal.

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

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was terminated on account of the appellant's persistent non-appearance and misuse of adjournments, with no further hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant repeatedly defaults in appearance and the statutory limit on adjournments is exhausted, the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution under the procedural rules governing the Tribunal.

---