TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t/applicant has filed this Civil Application No. 316 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 265 days caused in filing Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2010. 2. Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2010 is filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for determination and consideration of this Court :- (1) Whether the Hon ble CESTAT was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6-2005? 3. Civil Application No. 372 of 2010 is filed for stay against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Heard Mr. P.V. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant and Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 5. So far as delay condonation application is concerned, it is the case of the applicant that the applicant was pursuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, we are of the view that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause for filing Tax Appeal before this Court. We, therefore, condone the delay of 265 days and allow this Civil Application. 7. So far as Tax Appeal is concerned, the applicant - appellant in Appeal Memo has stated that the appeal is filed against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted questions of fact. Taking any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law is arising out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2010. 8. So far as Tax Appeal is dismissed there is no question of granting any stay and hence Civil Application No. 372 of 2010 is also rejected. 9. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 316 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
