Want of prosecution and non-compliance with bench directions justified dismissal of the appeal under procedural rules.

Repeated failure to cure appeal defects, including defects in the revised EA-3 form, absence of the certified copy of the order-in-original, and omission to affix the company seal, was treated as non-prosecution. Continued defaults in appearance and compliance showed disinterest in pursuing the matter, and the Tribunal invoked the procedural consequence under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with the Bench's directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance with the directions of the Bench.

Analysis: The appellants repeatedly failed to cure the defects in the appeal despite several opportunities, including defects in the revised EA-3 form, absence of the certified copy of the order-in-original, and failure to affix the company seal on documents. The record showed continued defaults in appearance and compliance, and the appellants did not prosecute the matter in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the Tribunal treated the conduct as showing disinterest in pursuing the appeal and invoked the procedural consequence under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with the directions of the Bench.

---