9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was taken up for disposal. In these circumstances the order dismissing their appeal is recalled and restored. The applicant have also filed application for condonation of delay of 261 days. The same is taken up for disposal. The contention of the applicant is that delay is not deliberate or intentional. The contention is that their company was declared sick and proceedings were initiated in the High Court at Delhi for winding up. There was only 15 skeleton staff due to which it was not possible for them to keep track of the things. After receipt of the order, they sought legal opinion from M/s. Sandersons and Morgans, Advocate whether there was sufficient ground to file appeal. Later, vide their letter dated 24-1-2005 the advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od for filing the appeal, the delay comes to 170 days. The contention is that the applicant could not explain the delay for the period from 4-2-2005 to 5-4-2005, 26-4-2005 to 9-6-2005 and 9-6-2005 to 27-7-2005. The contention is that the advocate of the applicant have informed them on 24-1-2005 that they have a strong case, despite of that the appellant did not file the appeal. Subsequently on 2-2-2005 also they were informed, thereafter also the applicant did not file the appeal. The contention is that they were to take clearance from COD did not prevent them from filing the appeal. The contention is that this Tribunal vide its order No. M-256/KOL/2011 dated-14-12-2011 in the case of CCE (P) v. M/s. Gadia Alluminium Pvt. Ltd. did not condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal, the delay works out to 170 days. 6. We find that the applicant could not explain delay for the period 4-2-2005 to 5-4-2005, 26-4-2005 to 9-6-2005, from 9-6-2005 to 27-7-2005. Section 35 provides for condonation of delay in filing appeal if sufficient cause is shown. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Living Media held as under : "12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed Period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." We also find that the decision relied upon by the appellant were distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Living Media (supra). The appeal is condonable under Section 35B if only sufficient cause is shown. The applicant failed to do so. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
