The Commissioner Of Central … vs Murudeswar Ceramic Ltd., Hubli on 6 November, 2001

0
87
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Bangalore
The Commissioner Of Central … vs Murudeswar Ceramic Ltd., Hubli on 6 November, 2001


JUDGMENT

G.A. Brahma Deva

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. At the outset, it was pointed out by the respondent’s Counsel that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. She submitted that not even an application was filed by the Revenue to condone the delay apart from the sufficient cause to condone the delay.

2. I have considered the matter. I find that Order in Appeal No. 768/99 dated 26.7.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been received by the Office of the Commissioner on 6.8.99 as per EA3. The said appeal was filed by the Revenue on 24.11.99. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. To condone the delay not only there must be a cause but cause must be sufficient. In the instant case, not even an averment was made by the Revenue to condone the delay. It is a well-settled fact that even administrative reason if any is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the absence of the application, the delay of 18 days cannot be condoned. In the view I have taken, the appeal is dismissed as bar of time.

(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *