9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. These COD applications are taken up for consideration. There is a delay of 2080 days and 1256 days after the Orders-in-Original were served on the assessee. The page 27 of the Paper-Book shows a letter of Deputy Commissioner wherein he has noted that the copies of the Orders-in-Original were received and ackn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director to file this appeal along with the applications for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel refers to the Tribunal ruling of the Delhi Bench rendered in the case of S.A.I.L v. CC, Kolkata as reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del.) wherein restoration application filed after lapse of 5 years in respect of a Public Sector Undertaking, who latter obtained clearance certificate from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 351 (Tri.-Kolkata), wherein the Calcutta Bench also did not condone the delay of 14 years in view of the fact that the notices of hearing had been served. 3.3 Further reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Bombay Bench in the case of Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 597 (Tri.-Mumbai) has also not condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in time. 3.6 Like-wise the Delhi Bench in the case of Capital Ferro Alloys P. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 306 (Tri. - Del.) has not accepted the reason for condoning the delay. Even in this case the notices were affixed on the factory gate under Mahazar. 3.7 The Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. - 1998 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) refused to accept the Government s expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
