9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It is noted that Shri Ramakrishnan was relieved from the service on 19.2.2013. The applicant had not taken any initiative to search the file for filing the appeal. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that Shri Ramakrishnan appeared in personal hearing on 28.8.2012 before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is difficult to accept the averment in COD application that Shri Ramakrishnan submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the applicant submits that they received the impugned order on 16.10.2012. He submitted that their Senior Manager Shri Ramakrishnan who was in-charge of the factory had submitted his resignation on 22.6.2012 and thereafter he was under some stress and he was relieved from employment with effect from 19.2.2013. It is submitted that on 24.3.2013, the central excise officers informed them that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nior Manager, the applicant had not taken any initiative to file the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (48) ELT 596 wherein it has been held that misplacement of papers is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals). It is not a case of misplacement of order, but, it is a clear case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant. Hence, there is no reason for condoning the delay of filing appeal. Accordingly, the COD application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal along with stay application also gets dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
