Appellate jurisdiction limits prevent dismissal for default; CESTAT appeals must be decided on merits despite absence of counsel.

The Tribunal's appellate power under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is limited to confirming, modifying, annulling or remanding the impugned order, and does not extend to dismissing an appeal in default merely because the appellant or counsel is absent. Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 must operate within that statutory framework, so the appeal should be decided on merits rather than for non-prosecution. On that reasoning, dismissal for default was unsustainable, and the rejection of restoration could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the CESTAT could dismiss the appeal for non-appearance of the appellant or its counsel under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, despite the absence of power under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to dismiss an appeal in default.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits it to confirm, modify, annul, or remand the order under appeal, but does not authorise dismissal of the appeal for default or for want of prosecution merely because the appellant or counsel is absent. Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules was considered in light of that statutory framework, and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits rather than being disposed of for non-prosecution.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal in default was unsustainable, and the restoration rejection also could not stand; the issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

---