9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal filed with a delay of 596 days. The Tribunal held that there are no reasons sufficient enough to justify the condonation of an inordinate delay of 596 days in preferring the appeal before the CESTAT. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is under difficult financial circumstances; that the person in charge of the affairs of the company left the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id only a sum of Rs. 10,65,068/- under protest. Hence, there remains a balance amount of Rs. 32,76,523/- to be paid by the petitioner along with interest. It is further submitted that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 makes it mandatory on the person desiring of filing an appeal, to deposit with the adjudicating authority, the duty demanded or the penalty levied. When the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. Apart from this, the petitioner had also adduced other grounds. I do not find any justifiable reason to reject the bona fides of the claim of the petitioner as to the mistaken impression it had as regards the appeal filing, particularly when the order appealed and to be appealed carried the same number, except for the different year. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
