https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752088 Repeated adjournments at the appellant's request and non-appearance on the fixed hearing date justified rejection of the appeal for default. The Tribunal held that an appellant must prosecute the appeal with reasonable diligence, and that persistent absence without adequate cause permits exercise of discretion under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory restriction on repeated adjournments under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rejected the appeal accordingly. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2024 07:11:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752088 Repeated adjournments at the appellant's request and non-appearance on the fixed hearing date justified rejection of the appeal for default. The Tribunal held that an appellant must prosecute the appeal with reasonable diligence, and that persistent absence without adequate cause permits exercise of discretion under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory restriction on repeated adjournments under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rejected the appeal accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752088