https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753283 Repeated absence of the appellant before CESTAT, together with the statutory limit on adjournments, justified dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, noting that adjournments are permissible only within prescribed limits and that default dismissal is authorised where the appellant does not appear. It also held that repeated adjournments beyond the statutory maximum were not justified, so the appeal was liable to be dismissed for default. en-us Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 07:56:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753283 Repeated absence of the appellant before CESTAT, together with the statutory limit on adjournments, justified dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal applied Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, noting that adjournments are permissible only within prescribed limits and that default dismissal is authorised where the appellant does not appear. It also held that repeated adjournments beyond the statutory maximum were not justified, so the appeal was liable to be dismissed for default. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753283