9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/2642 & 2645/2011 - Final Order nos. 598 & 599 of 2012 - Dated:- 4-9-2012 - P.G. CHACKO AND M. VEERAIYAN, JJ. T.V.L. Narasimha Rao and G.P. Sastry for the Appellant. Ms. Sabrina Cano for the Respondent. ORDER P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - The appeals and the connected applications are directed against order-in-original No.79/2003, dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate. These appeals and applications were filed on 9.9.2011 against the Commissioner's order which is said to have been received by the appellants on 8.3.2004. The COD applications filed by the appellants seek condonation of the delay of 2649 days involved in the filing of the appeals. Moving these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. According to the learned Superintendent (AR), this conduct of the appellants is blameworthy. 2. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel submits that the ends of justice demands that the COD applications be allowed. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The delay involved in the filing of the appeals is to the extent of more than 7 years. The prime reason stated by the appellant is that they were pursuing alternative remedy before the Hon'ble High Court all these years. We have perused the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 17.6.2011 in writ petition No.6099 of 2004, which reads as follows: "Mr. Ch.Pushyam Kiran, Advocate, representing Mr. S.Ravi, the counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission of this Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants, statements given by them, etc. It was in adjudication of this show-cause notice that order-in-original No.79/2003, dated 31.12.2003 was passed by the Commissioner. From these facts and circumstances, it is evident that the appellants were not ignorant of the appellate remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. They had the experience of having filed appeals under this provision of law against the Commissioner's earlier order dated 8.9.1998. Therefore, the present submission of the appellants that they were pursuing alternative remedy all these years against the Commissioner's order No.79/2003 ibid and hence the delay of their appeals should be condoned does not appeal to us. The appellants' submission that the delay of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
