TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Appellate Tribunal, hence, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these two appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellants have proposed the following question : "Whether the Hon'ble 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?" 3. In Tax Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 the appellant is M/s. L.J. Synthetic Mills through its proprietor-Jivatram Laxmandas Dariyani whereas in Tax Appeal No. 1695 of 2009 the appellant is Shri Jivatram Laxmandas Dariyani. 4. The appellant-Mill was running a textile processing unit wherein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred in law in dismissing the appeals for non-appearance of the appellants as well as in dismissing the applications for restoration of the appeals made by the appellants. It was submitted that it was only on account of sickness of Shri Jivatram Laxmandas Dariyani, that the change of address could not be communicated to the authority. It was contended that the 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. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1998 (2) GLH 21 = 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj.). 8. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....howing serious illness of Shri Dariyani had been placed on record. Agreeing with the contention of the learned D.R. that even presuming that Shri Dariyani was not well, the applications could have been filed by the authorized representative, who was looking after the affairs of the company, the Tribunal observed that this was a clear case of laches on the part of the appellants and accordingly, held that delay of a huge period of seven years cannot be condoned and rejected the applications on the ground of laches on part of the appellants. 10. In these appeals, the appellants have challenged the order dated 24th April 2002 made by the CEGAT as well as the order dated 17th June 2009 made by the Tribunal. 11. Section 35G of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 24th April 2002 is concerned, the appeals are required to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 13. Insofar as the order dated 17th June, 2009 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact to the effect that the only ground stated in relation to the 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 Shri Jivatram Laxmandas Dariyani was in fact unwell and was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit has been produced. Nothing has been brought on record to dislodge the aforesaid findin....