2017 (10) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant that it was unaware of the judgment of the Apex Court has not been found to be untrue. Similarly, the Tribunal has also not found untrue the claim of the appellant that the relevant files were misplaced - considering the huge financial liability that will be fastened on the appellant, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xure-A order was passed whereby demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 26,14,210/- was confirmed by the Department under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Interest and penalty were also levied. This order was confirmed by the first appellate authority by Annexure-B order. It was aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed Appeal No.E/1088/2004, before the Tribunal which was rej .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he delay has occurred. By the order impugned, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and on that basis, dismissed the application for restoration. 4. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, we notice that it is a fact that the very ONGC judgment, based on which the committee was constitu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X