https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790096 Repeated adjournments and the appellant's failure to take effective steps to argue the appeal justified dismissal for non-prosecution under the governing procedure. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 restricts adjournments in appeal hearings, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear. As the matter had already been listed on several earlier dates and no request was made to proceed on merits, further adjournment beyond the statutory limit was unwarranted. The appeal was therefore treated as a case of non-prosecution and dismissed. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790096 Repeated adjournments and the appellant's failure to take effective steps to argue the appeal justified dismissal for non-prosecution under the governing procedure. Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 restricts adjournments in appeal hearings, and Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 permits dismissal for default where the appellant does not appear. As the matter had already been listed on several earlier dates and no request was made to proceed on merits, further adjournment beyond the statutory limit was unwarranted. The appeal was therefore treated as a case of non-prosecution and dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790096