9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmr. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENTS Per SRI S.K. GAULE Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed these applications for condonation of delay of 1035 days. The contention of the applicant is that their factory was closed since 2006 and their registered office at Guwahati was almost non functional and only one peon and one senior staff were available who were not able to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the production. As the things improved, Shri Paulson finally rejoined the company on 1/1/2011 and after rejoining, he took over the charge of excise matters and thereby this appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 9/10/2007.The contention is that the Central Excise Authority were well aware of the precarious condition of the company for all these years and they did not take effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot change the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the applicants failed to produce any evidence that Shri Paulson was not on the pay roll of the company when the factory was closed nor they could produce any documentary evidence that there was no one to look after the Central Excise matter of the company during the material period. The contention is that the applicants have participated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that they were not aware of the liability and it has prevented them in not filing the appeal is not correct. Thus the applicants are not able to show sufficient cause for delay. 5.1 On an query from the Bench whether Shri Bharat kr. Kakoti was working with the applicant, the answer of Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant was affirmative. Undisputedly there is a delay of 1035 days i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e onward on which the order sought to be filed against is communicated. The Tribunal can condone the delay in case sufficient cause is shown in filing the appeal. In the present case, the applicant failed to show sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore the applications is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the stay petitions and appeals are also disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
