9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore confirming the Excise Duty of Rs. 6,04,910/- with interest under Section 11AB and penalty of Rs. 6,04,910/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. The applicant has further stated that they received the impugned order on 30.01.2015 and the due date to file the appeal before this Tribunal as per Section 35B expired on 02.04.2015 and the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 3 years and 44 days. The applicant has given the sequence of events leading to the present application seeking condonation of delay which is reproduced herein below: SI. No. Particulars Date 1. The appellant initially filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore against the impugned order. (Enclosed copy of lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter), was adjudicated de-novo and demand was set aside. He further submitted that since the de-novo order was in favour of the appellant, the appellant had withdrawn the appeal under a bona fide belief that the Department would not agitate the matter. He further submitted that the applicant withdrew the said appeal under a bona fide belief that the matter would be set to rest by the Department and would not be agitated any further. However, the Department has acted contrary to his belief. He further submitted that there is no intentional and deliberate delay in filing the present appeal which should be condoned by taking a liberal view. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Gem Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicant in his application for seeking condonation of delay does not bear out from bona fide belief. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Southern Pressure Casting v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai - 2017 (357) ELT 741 (Tri. Chennai) * Ghaziabad Ship Breakers v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad -2004 (176) ELT 232 (Tri. Del.). * Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 8 (Kar.). 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the applicant filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 694/2014-CE dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
