Dismissal for default in appellate proceeding due to non appearance; adjournments condemned and restoration allowed on sufficient cause.

An appellate tribunal refused to allow further mechanical adjournments and dismissed an appeal for default under its procedural rule where the appellant repeatedly failed to appear and service by registered post with acknowledgment was returned as 'no such addressee'. The tribunal relied on the principle that adjournments require serious reasons supported by proof, noting that deciding on merits without hearing would render the tribunal functus officio; consequence: appeal dismissed for default. The tribunal granted liberty to seek restoration, permitting reinstatement only on showing sufficient justifications and reasons for non appearance after exhaustion of prescribed service methods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for default due to repeated non-appearance of the appellant and failure of service at the address provided.

Analysis: Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits the number of adjournments that may be granted to a party and Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits the Tribunal, in its discretion, to dismiss an appeal for the appellant's default while allowing restoration if sufficient cause is later shown. The appellant repeatedly failed to appear on multiple listed dates; notices sent by RPAD to the address given were returned with the remark "no such addressee"; there is no record of any intimation of change of address to the Registry; and the department's enquiry reported the entity not found at the stated address. The Apex Court's precedents discourage routine or mechanical adjournments and support dismissal where adjournments are sought and granted without serious reason supported by proof. Considering exhaustion of service methods and the absence of representation or a request to decide ex parte, continuation of the appeal serves no purpose.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982; liberty is granted to the appellant to apply for restoration on showing sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant repeatedly fails to appear, notices to the address on record are returned undelivered and the appellant's whereabouts cannot be ascertained after exhaustion of service methods, the Tribunal may, in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and having regard to limits on adjournments in Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, dismiss the appeal for default while permitting restoration if sufficient cause is subsequently shown.

---