TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n lies in a very narrow compass the same is taken for final hearing and disposal. 4. This petition challenges the Order Nos. M/238/WZB/2005/C-III, S/351/WZB/2005/C-III, A/523/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (CESTAT) as well as the Order-in-Appeal No. YPP/229/SRT/2003, dated 13th February, 2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Surat-1 in Appeal F.No. V-2(54)169/SRT-I/DIV-II/2002. 5. By an order dated 7th August, 2002, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, a demand of ₹ 3,00,000/- had been confirmed against the petitioners and an equal amount of penalty had been imposed. The petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred an appeal challenging the same before CESTAT, Mumbai together with an application for condonation of delay as well as application for stay. That by the impugned order dated 27th April, 2005, CESTAT declined to condone the delay of 455 days and dismissed the application, stay application as well as the appeal. 8. When the matter came up for hearing at the notice stage, this Court was not satisfied with the reasons stated for the delay in preferring the appeal before CESTAT. On behalf of the petitioners, time was sought to place on record a further explanation explaining the delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, by a further affidavit dated 14th October, 2005 the petitioners stated various reasons for the delay caused in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been made in violation of principles of natural justice and there has not been any deliberate lapse or negligence of petitioners' part in not appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case. 9. On 17th October, 2005 notice was issued in the matter. In response to the notice, the respondents have put in appearance and have filed two affidavits-in-reply dated 28th November, 2005 and 18th January, 2006. However, the contention of the petitioners that notice of hearing in relation to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been served upon the petitioners had not been dealt with. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents, was directed to obtain inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
