https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767117 Repeated non-appearance by an appellant, together with repeated adjournment requests, can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. Under section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, adjournment is permissible only for sufficient cause and only up to three times during hearing, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. Once the statutory adjournment limit is exhausted and no sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal may refuse further adjournment and terminate the proceeding without going into the merits. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:33:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767117 Repeated non-appearance by an appellant, together with repeated adjournment requests, can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. Under section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, adjournment is permissible only for sufficient cause and only up to three times during hearing, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default when the appellant does not appear. Once the statutory adjournment limit is exhausted and no sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal may refuse further adjournment and terminate the proceeding without going into the merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767117