Repeated adjournments and non-appearance can justify dismissal for non-prosecution under Tribunal procedure.

Repeated adjournments beyond the statutory limit and the appellant's absence when the appeal was called could justify dismissal for non-prosecution under the Tribunal's procedural rules. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments to not more than three times during hearing of an appeal, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits the Tribunal, on non-appearance of the appellant, to dismiss the appeal for default or hear it on merits. On the stated facts, repeated adjournment requests and absence on the hearing date warranted dismissal without any merits adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether repeated adjournments beyond the statutory limit and the appellant's absence on the date of hearing justified dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution under the Tribunal's procedural rules.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments to not more than three times to a party during hearing of an appeal. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 empowers the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called, either to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear and decide it on merits. The record showed repeated adjournments sought by the appellant and absence on call on the date fixed for hearing, leaving no sufficient justification for further adjournment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the matter could not be adjourned beyond the statutory limit and that dismissal for non-prosecution was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was brought to an end on account of the appellant's default in appearance and repeated adjournment requests, and no merits adjudication was undertaken.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party repeatedly seeks adjournments beyond the statutory limit and fails to appear when the appeal is called, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution under its procedural rules.

---