2017 (6) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/COD/20136/2016 in ST/20166h n /2016-SM, ST/20166/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20290 / 2017 - Dated:- 17-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellant/applicant has filed the appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eason that the assessee though filed appeal against the Order-in-Original before the Commissioner (A) in time, the office of the Commissioner vide letter dated 11.7.2015 informed the applicant that the appeal filed by the applicant had been disposed of vide Order-in-Appeal No.156/2013 dated 2.4.2013 and the copy of the same was also despatched to them and the same was duly acknowledged on 2.4.2013 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng them to deposit an amount of ₹ 2 lakh. The applicant has also stated that after the amendment from August 2014, the appellant deposited 7.5% of the duty/tax and moved an application dated 16.10.2014 with the Commissioner (A) seeking restoration of the appeal and eventually vide order dated 3.11.2015 the appellant was informed by the office of the Commissioner that the applicant s request .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R relied upon the following authorities. i. B.D. Shirke Construction Technology Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2010 (261) ELT 1121 (Tri.-Mumbai) ii. BPCL vs. CCE, Indore: 2011 (273) ELT 316 (Tri.-Del.) iii. Harsh Anil Vasant vs. CC, New Delhi: 2014 (302) ELT 289 (Tri.-Del.) iv. CC vs. Ashok Kumar: 2016 (333) ELT 72 (Del.) v. CC (Preventive) vs. Nylex Traders: 2016 (332) ELT 399 (Bom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parties and perusal of the judgments cited supra, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to give satisfactory reason for such an inordinate delay of 948 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay and therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. ( Operative portion of the Order was p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X