M/S Jessop & Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Arising out of O/ONo.18/Commr./CE/Kol.III/2012-13 dated 11.03.2013 passed by Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata

For approval and signature:

DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order? :

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities? :

M/s Jessop & Company Ltd. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata III RESPONDENT (S)

APPEARANCE

None for the Appellant (s) Shri A. K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department

CORAM:

DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 02. 01. 2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75005/2015

Per Dr. D. M. Misra :

ThisMiscellaneous Application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the Appeal before this Forum.

2. The Miscellaneous Application was listed for hearing on 13.05.2014. The ld.Representative, Shri Santosh Dutta, for the Applicant, appeared and sought time till 27th June, 2014, for filing an Affidavit to explain the cause of the delay in detail. Therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time i.e on 27.06.2014, 08.08.2014, 26.09.2014 and finally, adjourned to 20th November, 2014. The Notice of hearing was sent by the Registry on 18.12.2014 fixing the date of hearing on 2nd January, 2015, i.e. today, which has not been returned as unserved. None appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, nor any Affidavit has been filed in support and explaining the delay.

3. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, vehemently argues that since the Applicant has not substantiated their Application for condonation of inordinate delay of 183 days by cogent reasons supported by an affidavit, therefore, their Application deserves to be dismissed.

4. I agree with the contention of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. I find that the Applicant has been given enough opportunities to file Affidavit in explaining the reasons for inordinate delay. However, they have not come forward by filing Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Stay Petition and Appeal, are also dismissed.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (DR. D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mm

2 Ex. Appeal No.71431/13