Adjournment not a right: unsupported requests may be refused, and non-appearance can lead to dismissal for non-prosecution.

Adjournment is not a matter of right and must be supported by sufficient cause; a mechanical request without supporting material can be refused. The Tribunal applied the restrictive approach to repeated adjournments reflected in Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal of an appeal when the appellant does not appear on the hearing date. In the absence of the appellant's counsel and no justified ground for further adjournment, the adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjournment application should be rejected and the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Analysis: The request for adjournment was made without supporting material and was found to be mechanical. The Tribunal relied on settled principles that adjournment is not a matter of right and must be supported by sufficient cause. It also referred to the restrictive approach to repeated adjournments under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 empowers dismissal of an appeal when the appellant does not appear on the hearing date. In the absence of the appellant's counsel and in the absence of a justified ground for further adjournment, the request was rejected.

Conclusion: The adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

---