https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425687 Repeated non-appearance by an appellant can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution where the record shows no active pursuit of the matter. The Tribunal noted the appellant's absence on multiple hearing dates, including the date of order, and applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments beyond three occasions, together with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not being prosecuted and dismissed it for non-prosecution. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:14:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425687 Repeated non-appearance by an appellant can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution where the record shows no active pursuit of the matter. The Tribunal noted the appellant's absence on multiple hearing dates, including the date of order, and applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits adjournments beyond three occasions, together with Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not being prosecuted and dismissed it for non-prosecution. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425687