2010 (3) TMI 833 - HC - Central Excise

Power to dismiss - Whether CESTAT has the power to dismiss the appeal for non appearance of the appellant and also to dismiss the application for restoration of the appeal made by the appellant - Held that - Tribunal has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of the appellant and that, even in absence of the appellants, the appeals ought to have been decided on merits Delay in filing appeal - Delay of seven years caused in making the applications for restoration was that the sole owner of the unit was unwell and was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit in the usual manner; that no supporting documentary evidence to indicate that the owner was in fact unwell and was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit has been produced. - Held that - CEGAT is concerned, the same is not entertained as being time barred as there is a considerable delay in preferring the appeals, in absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less any substantial question of law can be stated to arise, appeals are, accordingly, dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissal for non-appearance of appellant and restoration application rejection.

Analysis:
In these two appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants questioned whether the CESTAT had the authority to dismiss appeals for non-appearance and reject restoration applications. The case involved a textile processing unit facing central excise duty allegations, leading to appeals before the CEGAT and later the Tribunal. The CEGAT dismissed the appeals and stay applications due to non-appearance and lack of updated address. Subsequently, restoration applications were filed after seven years, citing the owner's illness as the cause of delay. However, the Tribunal rejected the restoration applications due to lack of evidence supporting the owner's illness and significant delay, deeming it a case of laches on the appellants' part.

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals and restoration applications, arguing that the appeals should have been decided on merits despite non-appearance. They relied on a previous court decision to support their stance. The court noted the significant delay in filing the appeals against the CEGAT's order, without any explanation or application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of those appeals as time-barred. Regarding the Tribunal's order, the court found no legal infirmity in rejecting the restoration applications due to lack of evidence supporting the owner's illness and the substantial delay, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

The court also mentioned a previous court decision but deemed it unnecessary to discuss further. The court dismissed the appeals, noting the time-barred nature of the challenge against the CEGAT's order and the lack of legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision, with no substantial question of law arising. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.