9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the prayer for an adjournment is rejected and the application for seeking condonation of delay is taken up for consideration. There is a delay of 163 days in terms of COD application filed by the appellants. It is stated by the appellants that he was busy in negotiating the sale of the Unit. As the Auditors of prospective purchaser required all papers relating to tax matters be handed over to them, therefore they took steps to hand over the file to Auditors of prospective Buyers. They had also informed the Auditor by their letter dated 17-4-2002 that they are proposing to file an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 208/02 dated 10-4-2002. However, they did not file the appeal as one Shri L. V. Ramachandran who handled the paper left t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng restoration of the appeal by recalling the Final Order No. 824/2004 dated 23-4-2004 wherein the Tribunal has clearly noted that the belated delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as the cause of delay has not been explained. Further more, they were taking adjournment on one pretext or the other as they were not even interested in pursuing the matter and hence the matter was decided on merits. The learned Counsel was mentioning that the Bench had directed him to file an affidavit in the matter. 2. We have gone through the order sheets and do not find any mention of such a direction to file an affidavit and the matter was not argued at any time as the learned Counsel and appellants were seeking adjournment after adjournment. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal had examined the Commissioner's reasoning inasmuch as the Commissioner had noted in his order that he had no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period laid down under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Therefore the Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeal before the Commissioner was correct. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has already given it's opinion on merits in the matter and therefore the ROA cannot be considered as there is no merit in it and the same rejected." In the present case, the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity by adjourning the matter. Ultimately the matter was required to be disposed of as the learned Counsel and the appellants were not interested to show any suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
