Court dismisses appeals due to delay, lack of evidence, upholds Tribunal decision. Challenge time-barred, no costs awarded.

The appeals were dismissed by the court due to significant delay in filing, lack of explanation or condonation of delay, and lack of evidence supporting the owner's illness in restoration applications. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject restoration applications, finding no legal infirmity in the decision. The dismissal was based on the time-barred nature of the challenge against the CEGAT's order and the absence of any substantial question of law. No costs were awarded in the case.

---

---

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.

---