9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply thereto clearly shows that the appellant was diligent in pursuing its case. - order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and accordingly we set aside the same and condone the delay of about 175 days in filing the appeal - Delay condoned conditionally. - C.E.A. No. 18 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - Sri Dilip B. Bhosale and Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, JJ. Judgment P.C: (per the Hon ble Sri Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao) This Central Excise Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short the Tribunal ) in COD No.219/2011 in Customs Appeal No.1956/2011. The appellant herein filed an appeal before the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat on re-verification, it was found that the cover addressed to the appellant was sent by speed post to the correct address at Bachupally only, but there was wrong-pasting of speed post slip. Another letter was also posted to Bollaram address. They admitted the addressing of the cover properly to the Bachupally address, but sent to the Bollaram address. After receipt of the said letter, when the appellant made enquiries in Bachupally Unit, it has come to light that on 09.07.2011, some Officer in R D Wing of the Unit had received the order, dated 21.10.2010, on 28.10.2010 and since he was not aware of the importance of the said order, he kept it in his draw and failed to intimate/deliver the same to the Officer concerned of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant give a sequence of events starting with a dated 04.02.2011. Though the order-in-appeal was admittedly received by the appellant on 28.10.2010, there is no cogent explanation of the delay between that date and 04.02.2011. That some Officer in the R D Wing of the appellant received the order-in-appeal and, without realizing its importance, kept it in his drawer is not a sufficient explanation. There is no mention of the name of the Officer in the COD application, nor has he been identified otherwise. The appellant has not evencared to bring on record an affidavit of any such Officer in support of the present application. We have perused the application for condonation of delay along with the order passed by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
