TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) by which the Tribunal refused to condone delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the company. Against the petitioners, proceedings were executed under the Central Excise Act. Adjudicating Authorities after hearing the petitioners confirmed the duty demand of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners had not complied with the order dated 19-2-2008 requiring certain amount of pre-deposit, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners also. 3. It is against this order that the petitioners approached the Tribunal. Admittedly, there was delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. The petitioners filed delay condonation application mainly contending that the petitioner No. 2 who was looking af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the delay condonation application. 5. We are however, of the view that the petitioners had failed to explain inordinate delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. We have briefly perused the documents presented by the petitioners before the Tribunal to show ill health of petitioner No. 2. However, none of these documents pertained to period immediately after the Commissioner passed his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the letter heads of the Doctors and the name under which the Doctors have purportedly signed the certificate. Such discrepancies are noticed in documents produced at pages 35 and 40 of the petition. In short, we are of the opinion that the petitioners failed to explain such gross delay. Tribunal committed no error in not condoning the same. 6. The petition is therefore, dismissed. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
