9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave for his daughters marriage. He further submits that the Personal Secretary of the said Senior Executive (Taxation) had kept the order in a file and the file was misplaced. It was noticed only at the time of recovery proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department. He submits that during the relevant period the Senior Executive (Taxation) was attending all the central excise proceedings. It is also submitted that the Senior Execute (Taxation) had attended personal hearing in person before the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that on the same issue, the Tribunal in 2008 passed the order in their favour as reported in 2008-12-STR-363 (Tri. Chen). The Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that when the impugned order was received by the Mumbai Office, the said Sr. Executive (Taxation) was on leave and was pre-occupied in his daughter's marriage as on 23.11.2010. It is further stated that when the said Sr. Executive (Taxation) returned his duty, it was escaped from his notice as the impugned order had been filed in some other file. It came to their notice, after about one year, when the Department ascertained from the factory as to whether the dues under impugned order had been paid. 5. We agree with the Ld. Authorized Representative that mere misplacement of the file in a Public Limited Company cannot be a sufficient reason for condonation of delay. It is required to examine overall facts of the case as to whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g delay. 7. The case laws relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the present case. In the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), the Honble Supreme Court condoned the delay of 883 days, where an ex-parte decree passed against the appellant. It is also pleaded non-action on the part of his advocate. The appellant complained about conduct of the advocate before the Consumer Forum. In the case of M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal condoned the delay by 63 to 147 days after considering the fact that the appellant on receipt of the order promptly emailed it to their Ld. Consultant, who appeared before the Tribunal. It was contented that there was technical hitch of emails between the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
