https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768921 Repeated adjournments beyond the statutory limit and the appellant's absence when the appeal was called could justify dismissal for non-prosecution under the Tribunal's procedural rules. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments to not more than three times during hearing of an appeal, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits the Tribunal, on non-appearance of the appellant, to dismiss the appeal for default or hear it on merits. On the stated facts, repeated adjournment requests and absence on the hearing date warranted dismissal without any merits adjudication. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:38:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768921 Repeated adjournments beyond the statutory limit and the appellant's absence when the appeal was called could justify dismissal for non-prosecution under the Tribunal's procedural rules. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits adjournments to not more than three times during hearing of an appeal, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits the Tribunal, on non-appearance of the appellant, to dismiss the appeal for default or hear it on merits. On the stated facts, repeated adjournment requests and absence on the hearing date warranted dismissal without any merits adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768921