9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d delay condonation applications were rejected on 13-10- 2003 [2004 (178) E.L.T. 359 (Tribunal)] by the Tribunal holding that the applicants have not succeeded in explaining the delay in filing the Appeals, and consequently, the were dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as follows : The petitioners are the Ex-Directors of M/s. Kuwer lindustries Ltd. which was engaged in the manufacturing of metallised Plastic/Polyster films in the factory at A-71 and 72, Sector 58, NOIDA. Show-cause notices were served upon the petitioners on 9-3-2000 requiring the factory to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,77,55,229.00 may not be recovered on the clearance of Metallised Polyeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, now known as Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 11-10-2002 within the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Act. 6. An objection was raised regarding delay in filing the Appeals. The petitioners, as noted above, filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. The delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that after 8-7-2001, the petitioners had no concern in the working of M/s. Kuwer Industries Ltd. The order dated 30-10-2003 was not s upon the petitioners and when they came to know about the said adjudication order, they made application for issuance of the Certified Copy of the order which was received by them only on 17-7-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioners have authorised anybody to receive the copy of the adjudication order on their behalf. The Authorised Signatory has received the adjudication order on behalf of M/s. Kuwer Industries Ltd. and, therefore, the service of the adjudication order would not amount the service upon the petitioners. It may be relevant to mention here that as per law it was incumbent upon the department to serve the adjudication order on the petitioners also. Therefore, the date of the service of the adjudication ought to have been treated as 17-7-2002 when the certified copy of the said order was made available to the petitioners. In view of the above, the orders dated 7-4-2003 and 13-10-2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
