9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the explanation given in the delay condonation regarding company being sick, it was under consideration before the BIFR, the package was finally sanctioned in the year 2004 and in the meantime there was change of officials, who were looking after the case, was sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. - delay condoned. - Central Excise Appeal No. 26 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2012 - Ashok Bhushan and Prakash Krishna, JJ. Shri Anil Sharma, Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri K.C. Sinha, ASG and R.C. Shukla, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Department. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication and made following observations :- The ground for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the appeals is that, from time to time various persons were looking after the excise affairs of the company and they were interacting with consultant, namely Shri Anoop Misra, Asstt. Manager from 13-12-1989 to 1-2-1999, Mr. D.P.N. Singh, DGM upto February, 1999, Mr. Ashok Tripathi from 19-12-1999 to 28-2-2002 and Mr. R.P. Singh, Commercial Officer, left the company and after that nobody in the company was aware of the pendency of the Central Excise matter against the company and that the company became sick and the BIFR package was finally sanctioned in the year 2004 and the new management thereafter applied for the copy of the order. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was received by the Company on 17th November, 2003 through courier is based on no material. It does not appeal to reason that when the order has been passed on 17th November, 2003 how it can be received through courier on the same day. It may be another thing that some representative of the appellant may receive the copy of the order in the office itself on the same day but the observation without there being referring to any material is erroneous. More so, in the explanation given in the delay condonation regarding company being sick, it was under consideration before the BIFR, the package was finally sanctioned in the year 2004 and in the meantime there was change of officials, who were looking after the case, was sufficient explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
