TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.2009 were received by somebody of the company on 29.10.2009. As per section 35B of the Central Excise Act, the appeals are supposed to be filed on 29.01.2010. But these appeals were filed on 26.05.2010 thus resulting a delay of 170 (one hundred and seventy) days in each case. The ld.Advocate submitted that the existence of such orders came to the knowledge of the appellant only in second week of April, 2010 and thereafter the matter was handed over to ld.Advocate Shri Pradip Kr. Roy on 19.04.2010 and subsequently the appeal was filed on 26.05.2010 after the aspect of knowledge of the order is considered that the appeal is within time and there is no delay. Further he has submitted that though the order was received on 29.10.2009 since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radictory. It is their argument that they came to know about the Order-in-appeal dated 12.10.2009 only in the second week of April, 2010 and thereafter handed over the same for drafting of appeal to Tribunal on 19.04.2010 as is evident from para 4 of the affidavit of the Director dated 27.07.2012. However, in para 3 of the said affidavit, they have said that the order was received by some person in the company on 29.10.2009 and because of usurp of the office by the erstwhile Chairman Mr.Dharam Godha and shareholders of Godha Group in the beginning of January, 2010 till 19.01.2010 they were not in a position to prefer appeal or to take necessary steps on such orders-in-appeal. We find the above statements of the applicant are contradictory a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cants for delay should reflect his bona-fideness and should be sufficient enough warranting condonation of the delay caused in filing the appeal. We find from the facts on record that the applicants approach were neither bona fide nor they have convincingly explained the cause of the delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle of law that the delay in filing the Appeal could be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown. The case laws cited by the ld.Advocate also endorsed the aforesaid principle in dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. In these circumstances since the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay we do not find merit in these applications and accordingly the same are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
