https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98960 Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98960 Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. Highlights Customs Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98960