9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against the order dated 23 January, 2012 of the CESTAT rejecting the appellants appeal and the application for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause for the delay of over 300 days more particularly that the appellants had not submitted any evidence in support of its case that the Director dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 March, 2007 of the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nashik. According to the appellants, the said order was passed by the Joint Commissioner as an ex parte order without affording any opportunity to the appellants. 5. The appellant has raised the following substantial question of law :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haran further submits that the Tribunal has dismissed the appellants restoration application on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to entertain such an application. However, the Tribunal while dismissing the restoration application by order dated 29 November, 2012 has recorded that in fact the appellant had produced with the application a photocopy of the FIR of the bullet injury suffered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause to show to explain the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal as also the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Nashik dated 27 May, 2008 is also set aside. Upon the appellants depositing the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 3 lakhs, the Commissioner (Appeals), Nashik shall take up the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
