9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. These applications for condonation of delay have been filed for- a. C/COD/85573/2019: Condoning the delay in filing Cross Objection (C/CROSS/85571/2019) to the Appeal No C/86356/2013 filed by the revenue, challenging certain portion of the order in original No 76/2012/CAC/CC(E)/YG/G.VII dated 30.11.2012. (delay sought to be condoned is about 17 Months) b. C/COD/86432/2019: Condoning the delay in filing appeal No C/88062/2019 challenging order in original No 76/2012/CAC/CC(E)/YG/G.VII dated 30.11.2012. (delay sought to be condoned is 2513 days.) 2.0 The facts leading to the above mentioned two applications for condonation of delay are stated as follows: * Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai has vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order earlier as the same was posted to wrong address by the revenue and it was only on 09.04.2019 they had received the same. In the matter they filed the appeal on 17.05.2019. Thus from the date of communication of order the appeal has been filed within time. 3.0 We have heard Shri Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocate for the Applicant and Shri Kishori Lal, Principal Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.0 Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the cross objections filed by them should be considered as part of paper book filed by them in the appeal filed by them and he would not be pressing for the application of condonation of delay in that matter. He further stated that CESTAT has vide Interim Order No 258/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revenue was heard in presence of the counsel for the applicants. No satisfactory reason has been given for the delay in filing the Cross Objections beyond permitted period of 45 days from that date. Hence we hold that this application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. 7.0 C/COD86432/2019 in C/88062/2019: In the present case we observe that this tribunal has vide its interim order No 258/2019 dated 15.10.2019 held as follows: "5. We find that the Department has claimed to have issued the order-in-original on 30.11.2012. No proof has been placed on record. The order sent by speed post has not been returned as un-delivered, thus necessitating it to be displayed on the notice board as per Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
