M/S Kedar Nath & Sons vs Cce, Ghaziabad
- CitationAppeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-218-13-14 dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Centra
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant seeks condonation of a delay of 311 days in filing an appeal, a bare plea that the proprietor is not well educated or versed in complex legal provisions, together with an unspecified family bereavement, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation, and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed; consequently the appeal, being time-barred, stands rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
No. ST/COD/50117/2015 & ST/50214/2015-CU(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-218-13-14 dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s Kedar Nath & Sons Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance:
None - for the Appellant
Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 52539/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram :
Notice of hearing of the COD application was dispatched to the applicant/appellant and Counsel Shri R.C. Verma, Advocate on 20.5.2015. When the COD application is taken up today for hearing there is however no representation on behalf of the applicant. The applicant seeks condonation of delay of 311 days in preferring the appeal.
2. The appeal is preferred against the order of the ld. Appellate Commissioner dated 29.1.2014, filed on 12.1.2015. In the COD application, it is pleaded that proprietor of the applicant concern is not well versed with the complex legal provisions, is not well educated, that his father died an unnatural death which caused great mental trauma and in the circumstances the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. Condonation of delay is therefore sought.
3. Neither the date of death of the proprietors father is mentioned nor any other satisfactory cause pleaded for the inordinate delay of 311 days in preferring the appeal. Reasons pleaded for the delay are not satisfactory. Hence we dismiss the COD application ex. parte. The appeal stands rejected consequently.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
RM
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free