9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teen days in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the questions raised in the appeal are; the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) being Appeal No. 411 against the order dated 27th November, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad. The said appeal was heard on 3rd February, 2003 and ultimately disposed of on 17th November, 2003. The appellant filed a central excise appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application, which was filed for condonation of delay, the case took by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The company was very much in existence. The change of the officers or leaving of the offices in the company did not stop the running of limitation for filing the appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal which was received by the company on 17-11-2003 through courier. The Director or the officials were on the pay-roll of the company at that time. It only shows that the company was too negligent and careless in handling the matter, and as such it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The impugned order had attained finality by lapse of time and the Revenue has acquired a valuable right there under and that right cannot be taken away from them simply because the appellant's company was before the BIFR and the package was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant that it came to know about the order only in the month of January, 2005 has to be accepted. There was sufficient materials given by the appellant for condonation of delay and the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the order of Tribunal cannot be sustained. The appeal was admitted on the question as to whether the appellant has sufficiently explained the delay. We answer the question in favour of the appellant. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The order impugned dated 12th July, 2005 deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal may decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
