9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this regard would be self-explanatory. A copy of the FIR filed before the concerned Police Station is annexed herewith. (b) The Labour union had taken advantage of the situation to launch a protest against the labour policy. (c) There was a severe financial crisis during the above-mentioned period and only the junior most official was left to take care of the administration of the office and was not able to organise the Appeal against the adverse order passed by the Appellate Commissioner. (d) The factory was virtually left to the care of a clerk in charge who was having no knowledge of the Central Excise Account. (e) The hardship increased as the Consultant in these matters was away most of the time after he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handra Sons v. CEGAT [2002 (139) E.L.T. 36 (Del.)], while ld. SDR has relied on the Tribunal s decision in Indian Creation Exports v. CC, New Delhi - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 46 (Tri. Del). SDR has also relied on the Madras High Court s judgement in Quantas Engineers Promoters (P) Ltd. v. T.N. Taxation Spl. Tribunal - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 1165 (Mad.). 5. We have considered the submissions and the case law. The impugned order was served on the appellants on 1-6-2002. An appeal against that order ought to have been filed on or before 1-9-2002. The captioned appeal was filed on 15-7-2003, with a delay of 313 days. The reasons for this delay, stated in the present application, have already been reproduced in this order. Some of these reasons relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filing of the appeal with this Tribunal was condoned by the Hon ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Their lordships held that the expression sufficient cause under Section 129A of the Customs Act should be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach. In the instant case, we have already examined with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach as to whether there was sufficient cause for the appellants under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act for not having filed the appeal within the prescribed period. We have found that the reasons stated in the instant application are not sufficient for condoning the delay. In the case of Quantas Engineers Promoters (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by SDR, the Madras High Court refused to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
