9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of more than ten years - Held that: - reflects the casual attitude of the petitioner-Company and shows that the petitioner-Company is not interested in the proceedings - petition rejected X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings were initiated against the petitioner-Company. 2.1 Show cause notice dated 25-1-1995 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner-Company submitted its reply vide reply dated 12-2-1996. After considering all the aspects, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, Respondent No. 3 herein, passed the order dated 14-2-1997, whereby, an amount of Rs. 44,53,487.65 was ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for ascertaining compliance thereof. 2.3 Thereafter, on 12-12-1997, the CEGAT, Mumbai passed the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against the said order, the petitioner-Company preferred Misc. Application No. E/ROA/1164 of 2008 in Appeal No. E/931 of 1997 for restoration of the main appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings. The decision of this Court passed in S.C.A. No. 2213/2001, dated 11-3-2008 [2009 (234) E.L.T. 636 (Guj.)] and which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner-Company shall not come in the rescue of the petitioner-Company inasmuch as in that case, there was no such delay in preferring the restoration application as is the case in this matter. Therefore, the said decision will no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
