9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 - Held that:- where the delay caused in filing the present appeal is not deliberate and intentional and has been caused on account of the circumstances that applicants were not aware of the non-filing of the appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT and it was only during the last week of July 2015 that the applicants came to know that no appeal had been preferred against the Order-in-Appeal after recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of 235 days from the due date on the ground that another appeal involving demand of duty in an identical issue against the applicant for the preceding period i.e. July 2007 to December 2011 had been handled by the Corporate Office at Mumbai by engaging the services of Shri SS Gupta, Chartered Accountant, Mumbai and the Management in Bangalore had entertained a bona fide impression that the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been preferred against the Order-in-Appeal after receiving a call from the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer requiring them to furnish the proof of payment under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and thereafter the matter was brought to the notice of the Management at Bangalore and thereafter the present appeal was filed but in the process delay of 235 days was caused which was not del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopt a pragmatic approach which furthers the cause of justice and not a narrow or pedantic approach - Tribunal not justified in not condoning the delay Appeal restored to the file of Tribunal. He also placed reliance on another judgment in the case of Pepco Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in [2015 (322) E.L.T 280 (Guj.) wherein it was held that when person who was dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
