M/S.Tribeni Metalloys (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.48/GHY/CE(A)/GHY/2013 dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax(Appeals), Guwahati.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

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 Authorative report or not?

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

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

M/s.Tribeni Metalloys (P) Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati Respondent (s)

Appearance:

NONE for the Appellant (s)

Shri N.G.Mondal, A.C.(A.R.) for the Respondent (s)

CORAM:

Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing:- 08.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 08.04.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75218-75221/2015

Per Dr. D.M. Misra.

None present for the Applicant nor any request for adjournment. Heard the Ld. A.R for the Revenue.

2. The matter appeared on several occasions. On the last occasion on 09.02.2015, when the matter was called, no one was present, nor there was any request for adjournment was made. Similar situation is repeated to-day.

2. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that even though the Applicant mentioned at para 3 of their Miscellaneous Application stated that there was a delay of 80 days, but in fact the delay was of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. He submits that the explanation furnished at para 4 of their Application is vague and not supported by any material particulars. He submits that even though the Applicant mentioned the reasons for delay was due to selection of counsels, but, they had not furnished the details thereof in support of the said ground. It is his submission that sicne the Applicant could not justify the inordinate delay of 84 days stating bona fide reasons, hence, their application for condonation of delay is devoid of merit in view of the ratio laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Office of Chief Post Master General Vs. Living India Lt. 2012 (277) ELT 289(SC).

4. We find force in the submission of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. On going through the Application submitted by the Applicant, we do not find sufficient reasons supported by evidences displaying bonafideness on the part of the applicant and also no proper explanation is forthcoming supported by evidence for the inordinate delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. The vague reason of delay selection of Counsel is also not supported by evidence with details thereof. Following the ratio laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the Living Medias case(supra), we are of the view that the Applicant could not able to make out a case for condonation of the delay of 84 days. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application(COD) is dismissed, and consequently the Appeals and Stay Petitions are also dismissed.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)

SD/ SD/

(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm

3

Appeal No. Ex.Ap.75246, 75247, 75248, 75249/14