9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accordingly intimated the same to the Tribunal under his letter and had requested for adjournment. However, the adjournment was refused and the application for stay was dismissed. The appeal was first taken up for hearing on 18th May, 2009 and the same was dismissed for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the contention on behalf of the appellant that the absence of the Advocate on 13th May, 2009 was on genuine ground and since the dismissal of the stay application was not known to the appellant till 18th May, 2009, no arrangement could be made by the appellant to ensure the presence of the appellant before the Tribunal on 18th May, 2009. Ld. Advocate for the appellant drawing our attention to the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent to the application for adjournment filed on behalf of the appellant being dismissed and it was the duty of the appellant themselves to ascertain the next date of hearing fixed in relation to the appeal. Nevertheless considering the facts disclosed in relation to the difficulty which was faced by them in ascertaining such date, undoubtedly, the sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of the Advocate for the appellant on 18th May, 2009 before this Tribunal. Equally, since it has been clarified that the Advocate could not appear on 13th May, 2009 on account of his personal difficulty, for the absence of the Advocate on 13th May, 2009, the party should not have been blamed. 5. Having said as above, it is also to be noted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld remain without being functioning on account of the absence of an Officer on the ground of his or her sickness. Besides, it is not in dispute that other activities of the appellants were going on and there is no dispute that other financial liabilities were regularly being discharged, except the factory was closed at a relevant time. In such circumstances, mere sickness of General Manager cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. It was necessary for the appellant to take appropriate steps to pursue the remedy within time, and delay ought to have been explained disclosing sufficient cause. The reasons given cannot be said to be sufficient cause. Since on merits there is absolutely no case for interference, no purpose would be served in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
