https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447457 Repeated non-appearance and repeated adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, read with the adjournment limits in Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to attend multiple listings, including the e-hearing date, and gave no request or sufficient cause for a further adjournment. Relying on Supreme Court authority against routine and mechanical adjournments as an abuse that delays justice, it exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeals for default, while noting the proviso permitting restoration if sufficient cause is later shown. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:00:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447457 Repeated non-appearance and repeated adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, read with the adjournment limits in Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to attend multiple listings, including the e-hearing date, and gave no request or sufficient cause for a further adjournment. Relying on Supreme Court authority against routine and mechanical adjournments as an abuse that delays justice, it exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeals for default, while noting the proviso permitting restoration if sufficient cause is later shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447457