TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, a private Limited Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the order dated 19th April, 2010 dismissing the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the stay petition and the appeal on several grounds. 3. It appears that being aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, Commissionerate, the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was required to file an appeal before the Learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata. Incidentally, the petitioner has two directors - S.N. Kejriwal and S.K. Kejriwal. At the point of time the appeal was required to be filed before the Tribunal, S.K. Kejriwal, one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll, delay should not have been caused. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal should not have quoted a few sentences from the application and relying thereon should not have dismissed the same. Submission is it is a normal feature in a corporate structure that although there are employees at different levels and there is division of labour, but at the same time it has to be kept in mind that important and major policy decisions affecting the company are usually taken by the persons who normally occupy very senior positions that is, who are usually the directors of the company. According to the petitioner, in the instant case when the appeal was supposed to be filed, one of the directors S.K. Kejriwal was seriously ill and was bed ridden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Mr. S.N. Kejriwal and Mr. S.K. Kejriwal. Although there are many personnel in the company but all the policy decisions taken by the Directors. 4.2 In view of the admitted position that the factory was running and one of the Directors was looking after all the affairs of the company during the period in question. Therefore, we find no merit in the COD Application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Stay Petition and the Appeal are dismissed. 6. It is evident that the Tribunal had only referred to and relied on paragraph 5 of the application while passing the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had unfortunately ignored the other paragraphs of the said application, parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
