M/S Vedant Clearing Agency vs Cce, Ghaziabad
- CitationAppeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-217-13-14 dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Centra
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not condone a delay of 389 days in filing an appeal where no satisfactory cause is pleaded for the delay, and an appeal filed after such a delay is dismissed together with the condonation application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-217-13-14 dated 22.1.2014 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 Vedant Clearing Agency Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R. Verma, Advocate - for the Appellant
Shri Rajeev Tandan, D.R. - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No.52538/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram :
No satisfactory cause is pleaded for condonation of the delay of 389 days in preferring this appeal.
2. Appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. Against this order, the appellant preferred Writ Tax No. 548/2014 before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 8.9.2014 on the ground of availability of a statutory appellate remedy to this Tribunal. The appellant however, preferred this appeal on 20.2.2015. No reasons are pleaded for the substantial delay between the date of dismissal of writ petitions on 8.9.2014 and filing of their appeal on 20.2.2015.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, COD application is dismissed and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
(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