TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... winding up by this Court and that is how the proceedings commenced and this Court eventually passed the order of winding up. It is during this time that it is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to a standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate. Once all operations were closed and the factory was not operating, then, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be said to be barred by limitation. Once the earlier dismissal of the appeal on merits was exparte, then, the Tribunal could have, by some conditions being imposed, recalled the order and gave a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board was considering various schemes submitted by the company, but eventually concluded that the company is not viable. It, therefore, recommended winding up of the petitioner-company in the month of November, 2006. In January, 2007, that was treated as an application by this Court for winding up of the petitioner-company. The petitioner also states in paragraph 7 of this petition as to how it stopped all activities, including production and giving a closure notice. It is stated that after the winding up proceedings were commenced, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs passed an order on 1st February, 2007. That order resulted in the petitioner being visited with certain monetary liabilities. 4. In the meanwhile the petitioner-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that he has no powers to condone the delay beyond the condonable period prescribed in the statute. I find law is no more res-integra and stands settled by following decisions : 1. Maithan Ceramic Limited Vs. C.C.E. Jamshedpur [2002 (145) E.L.T. 394 (Tri.- LB)] 2. Raja Mechanical Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [2002 (144) E.L.T. 36 (Del.)] 3. Singh Enterprises Vs. C.C.E. Jamshedpur [2008 (221) E.L.T., 163 (S.C.)] 3. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal and reject the same. 6. This order was passed after the appellant is stated to have complied with a conditional order of stay. However, from page 26, it is apparent that when this order was passed on 29th May, 2009, the petitioner and its advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) Excise Law Times, 163, SC , will apply in this case. The First Appellate Authority in the impugned order clearly recorded that in the presence of the security guard of the respondent, the order of the Joint Commissioner was pasted on the gate of the factory. The appeal was filed almost after six months. Therefore, once again the Member (Judicial) did not find any reasons for adjourning the matter. He dismissed the application for restoration filed by the petitioner-appellant. Though the application sought restoration of the appeal, this application was dismissed and equally the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wound up. This recommendation / reference of the BIFR was treated as a suo moto petition for winding up by this Court and that is how the proceedings commenced and this Court eventually passed the order of winding up. It is during this time that it is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to a standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate. Once all operations were closed and the factory was not operating, then, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be said to be barred by limitation. It is this argument which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises, will apply in this case. The First Appellate Authority in the impugned order clearly recorded that in the presence of the security guard of the company, the impugned order was pasted on the gate of the factory, and the appeal was filed almost after 6 months. 5. In view of the foregoing I do not find any reasons in adjourning the matter and hence dismiss the application filed by the appellant for the Restoration of Appeal. 11. Once the Tribunal has confirmed the dismissal of the appeal earlier by additional grounds, then, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the larger and wider controversy need not be gone into. It could be that there is so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
