https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447226 Repeated absence of an appellant without sufficient cause can justify dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, especially where the statutory limit on adjournments has been exhausted. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and caps it at three times during an appeal hearing, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows the Tribunal, on non-appearance, either to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. On the stated facts, multiple opportunities had already been granted and no final adjournment request was made, so dismissal for default was treated as justified. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:28:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447226 Repeated absence of an appellant without sufficient cause can justify dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, especially where the statutory limit on adjournments has been exhausted. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act permits adjournment only for sufficient cause and caps it at three times during an appeal hearing, while Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows the Tribunal, on non-appearance, either to dismiss the appeal for default or decide it on merits. On the stated facts, multiple opportunities had already been granted and no final adjournment request was made, so dismissal for default was treated as justified. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447226