Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs M/S on 27 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs M/S on 27 January, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/39/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 39 of 2011
 

In


 

STAMP
NUMBER No. 344 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

M/S
APURVA ALUMINUM CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RJ OZA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/01/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

This
application seeks condonation of delay caused in filing Tax Appeal
[Stamp] No. 344 of 2011.

Mr.

R.J. Oja, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the applicant has
invited attention to the averments made in the application to
demonstrate that initially, a consolidated tax appeal had been filed
in relation to nine appeals which had been preferred before the
Tribunal, hence, the applicant was required to file eight other
appeals. That, the appeal which had been filed initially was within
time and that on account of technical objection, separate appeals
were required to be filed. It is submitted that in the
circumstances, as such, there is no delay in filing the tax appeal
and only on the ground that separate appeals were required to be
filed that there is delay in filing this appeal.

In
the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Standing
Counsel, it is apparent that the consolidated appeal had been filed
in time, however, on account of technical grounds, namely, that
separate appeals were required to be filed, the applicant was
required to file separate appeal. Since, the consolidated appeal had
been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, as such, it
cannot be said that there is any delay in filing the tax appeal.

For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The delay caused in filing Tax Appeal [Stamp] No. 344 of
2011 is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed
accordingly.

[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]

[H.B.

ANTANI, J.]

pirzada/-

   

Top