9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in not filing the appeal is not correct - applications is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed - Excise Appeal Nos.-50, 51 & 54/2011 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2012 - SRI S.K. GAULE, DR.D.M. MISRA, JJ. Shri Arijit Chakraborty Shri Abhijit Chakraborty, Advocates FOR APPELLANTS Sri S.Misra, Addl. Commr. (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 the records of correspondence properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liability of hundred crores of rupees for construction from pillar to post. In these circumstances there was a delay of 1035 days. 3. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the impugned orders are of dated 9/10/2007 and there is no denial of the fact that they were received by the applicant on 8/01/08. Hence the appeals were filed only on 7/2/11 and there is a delay of 1035 days. The contention is that mere leaving of the company by Shri Paulson does not 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 Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Commercial) who was looking after the Central Excise matter, left the company and rejoined on 01/01/2011 and thereafter only the company has filed the appeal. 5.2 We find that Shri Bharat Kr. Kakoti filed the appeals and has also filed the affidavit which goes to show that there is no denial of fact that Shri Kakoti was throughout with the company. Therefore the contention that as Shri Paulson had left the company they could not file the appeal and only on his rejoining they filed the appeal is not correct. As per Section 35B, the appeal is to be filed within three months from the date 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
