9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has filed only one appeal against the respondent. Office of the Commissioner of Customs has sought the condonation of delay by only stating that through oversight only one appeal had been filed. It is seen that no other justification is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the revenue - Condonation denied. - Appeal No. : C/10650,10651/2014-DB - ORDER No. A/10883 10884/2014 - Dated:- 1-5-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kutty (A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri Hardik Modh (Advocate) JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; These two applications are for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the bench, are filed by the revenue. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of C. Ex. Service Tax (LTU) Vs. Lupin Ltd. - 2012 (285) ELT 221 (Tri. - Mumbai). He would also draw our attention to the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shree Ganesh Knit (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (280) ELT 169 (Guj.) for the proposition that sufficient cause is shown to justify the delay in filing the appeal. He would also draw our attention the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toshniwal Bros. (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (133) ELT 208 (Tri. - Mumbai) to submit that delay of four years in filing the appeal in respect of other respondents as main appeal against importer is filed within time. 5.1 It is his submission that the provisions of CESTAT Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that sufficient cause has to be shown for condonation of delay, as also held by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. - 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC). He would submit that the application for the condonation of delay should be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. At the outset, we have record that delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is approximately six years. 9. Application for condonation of delay as filed by revenue reads as under: In the matter of an Appeal preferred against Order in Original No. KDL/COMMR/13/Denovo/2008 dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Kandla, the Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonation of delay without properly justifying the delay or indicating cause for delay. Suffice to say that such an application needs to be summarily dismissed; we find that it is painful in hearing the matters of condonation of delay without being properly justified. We are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the Departmental Representative does not carry their case any further for the simple reason that in all those cases revenue had filed the composite appeal before the Tribunal and CESTAT registry had directed to file appeals against other respondents. In the case in hand the revenue has filed only one appeal against the respondent M/s. National Impex Corporation as can be ascertained from the papers in appeal no.C/310/2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
