2006 (2) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. There are two applications before us, one seeking condonation of the delay of 57 days involved in the appeal and the other praying for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts involved in the case. We take up the first application. 2. The impugned order was received by the party on 23-01-2004 and the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any of the facts pleaded in the application and that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. She relies on the Supreme Court s judgment in Union of India v Tata Yodogawa Ltd. [1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.)] and the Tribunal s decision in Tracon India v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2004 (175) E.L.T. 320 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. 4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As rig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the judgment of the apex court that, in cases arising under the Central Excise Act or under the Customs Act, any delay of appeal should be explained date-wise. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming, nor is there any evidence in support of the facts pleaded by the party. 5. For the reasons noted above, we dismiss the application. Consequently, the appeal along with the sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X