Dismissal of appeal for default under CESTAT Procedure Rules; adjournments unsupported by proof lead to dismissal, restoration permitted.

CESTAT procedure on dismissal for default is examined: repeated adjournments without satisfactory justification or proof justify dismissal for default, as continued pendency serves no purpose when the appellant does not pursue representation. The Tribunal emphasises that absent a request to decide ex parte, merits cannot be adjudicated without hearing the appellant, since adverse findings would render the Tribunal functus officio and deprive the appellant of remedy. Liberty to apply for restoration is permitted if the appellant demonstrates sufficient cause and justification for non-appearance when seeking restoration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals should be dismissed for default due to repeated non-appearance/ non-prosecution by the appellants.

Analysis: The appeals concern repeated adjournments and multiple earlier hearing dates with no representation of the appellants and returned notices. The Tribunal considered Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (limiting adjournments) and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (power to dismiss an appeal for appellant's default), and relied on higher court authority discouraging mechanical grant of adjournments. The Tribunal noted absence of any request to decide the matter on merits ex parte and the availability of restoration if sufficient cause is later shown.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed for default for non-appearance; the decision is adverse to the appellants.

---