2001 (6) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 13 of 1990, dated 20-3-1990, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi; that the appeal was filed through Shri D.N. Kohli, ld. Consultant; that Shri D.N. Kohli was handling and taking care of the matter on behalf of the appellant which is apparent from the stay order dated 20-6-1990; all the papers with respect to the matter were with Shri D.N. Kohli; that both the partners of the firm have left Delhi and the unit was lying closed; that Shri Sarabjit Singh one of the partners received a letter dated 23-2-2001 from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sonepat requiring him to deposit Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,77,165.87 and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000.00; that thereafter, the applicant contacted Shri D.N. Kohli and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eft Delhi for Baroda on 18-1-1985 and settled in Baroda for business purposes; that Shri Paramjit Singh closed the unit in 1989 and left for Canada. The ld. DR contended that inspite of these facts, the address mentioned in the form of appeal was the factory address only; that once the factory has been closed and both the partners had gone away, the reason for giving the address of factory has not been explained. He further submitted that both Shri D.N. Kohli and Shri Satya Sheel were representing the applicants in the matter before the Tribunal; that when the matter was called for hearing Shri Satya Sheel was present in the Court who submitted that the applicant had not contacted him in the matter. He also mentioned that the applicant had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... intimate any new address to the Appellate Tribunal. The application for restoration of appeal has also been filed after the expiry of more than three years period from the date of the Final Order. Though no time limit is prescribed in the statute or in the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, the application has to be filed within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat (supra) observed that "even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time." Accordingly, we observe that the applicant has not made out any case for recalling our earlier order dated 9-1-1998 and, therefore, we reject the application filed by the applicants.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X