Repeated adjournments and default in appearance justify dismissal for non-prosecution once the statutory limit is exhausted.

Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 restricts adjournments in hearing to not more than three times for a party, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear. Repeated adjournments had already been granted, no request was made to proceed on merits, and further adjournment beyond the statutory limit was held unjustified. The appeal was therefore rightly dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of repeated adjournments and the statutory limit on adjournments.

Analysis: Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments during hearing to not more than three times to a party. Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 empowers the Tribunal, where the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, to dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. The matter had been repeatedly adjourned on several earlier dates, and no request was made to argue the appeal on merits. In these circumstances, further adjournment beyond the statutory limit was found unjustified.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20.

Ratio Decidendi: When the appellant repeatedly defaults in appearance and the statutory limit on adjournments is exhausted, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution under the procedural rule governing default.

---