https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450710 Repeated non-appearance by the appellant and its counsel despite service of hearing notices justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had earlier been dismissed for default and restored, yet the appellant still took no steps to prosecute the matter or respond to notices. Exercising its discretion under Rule 20, and relying on the need to avoid routine and mechanical adjournments, the Bench refused any further adjournment and dismissed the appeal for default. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450710 Repeated non-appearance by the appellant and its counsel despite service of hearing notices justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had earlier been dismissed for default and restored, yet the appellant still took no steps to prosecute the matter or respond to notices. Exercising its discretion under Rule 20, and relying on the need to avoid routine and mechanical adjournments, the Bench refused any further adjournment and dismissed the appeal for default. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450710