9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata. 2. The appellant is apparently engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and has a factory at Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Midnapore. 3. The appellant had its Registered Office at 75C, Park Street, Kolkata - 700016. The Registered office has, however, been shifted to 11, Grant Lane, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. 4. The appellant claims to have filed declaration under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from time-to-time, classifying their product i.e. Duplex Board in the form of loose sheets and strips under Chapter sub-heading 4805.00. 5. Waste and scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. A stay application was also filed before the Tribunal. However, admittedly, no order of stay was passed. 11. By an Order-in-Appeal No. 59/HAL/09, dated 12th October, 2009, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of order of pre-deposit. According to the appellant, the appellant derived knowledge of the aforesaid order in the second week of April of 2010. The appellants came to know that the order had formally been received by somebody on behalf of the appellant on October 29, 2009. According to the appellant, the appellant was not able to identify who had received the said order. However, immediately on receiving the aforesaid order, the appellant started taking steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dha and the shareholders of Godha Group had usurped the factory of the appellant in the beginning of January, 2010 and as such, the office bearers were not in a position to take steps to prefer an appeal. An affidavit was also filed by one Shri Vikaram Dalmia, Director of the appellant. 15. The Revenue argued that the applicant could not explain the delay between January 29, 2010 and May 26, 2010 by adducing plausible explanation. After hearing the respective parties, the learned Tribunal found that it was evident that some person in the company had received the order on October 29, 2009 and because of usurpation of the office by Mr. Dharam Godha and shareholders of Godha Group in January, 2010, till January 19, 2010, the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was neither bona fide nor had they convincingly explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal. The finding of inability to convincingly explain the cause of the delay was based on the earlier finding that there was no explanation of what had transpired between 29th October, 2009 and 29th January, 2010. The learned Tribunal took note of the usurpation of the office of the applicant from early January till 19th January, 2010. Perhaps if the learned Tribunal had applied the correct principles of law and considered the period of delay from 29th January till the 1st week of April, 2010, it might have arrived at a different conclusion. 21. Having regard to its own finding that the delay need not be explained mechanically but the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
