https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779470 Adjournment is not a matter of right and must be supported by sufficient cause; a mechanical request without supporting material can be refused. The Tribunal applied the restrictive approach to repeated adjournments reflected in Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal of an appeal when the appellant does not appear on the hearing date. In the absence of the appellant's counsel and no justified ground for further adjournment, the adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Oct 2025 09:58:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779470 Adjournment is not a matter of right and must be supported by sufficient cause; a mechanical request without supporting material can be refused. The Tribunal applied the restrictive approach to repeated adjournments reflected in Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal of an appeal when the appellant does not appear on the hearing date. In the absence of the appellant's counsel and no justified ground for further adjournment, the adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779470