TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuation, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of L. J. Synthetics Mills (2010 (3) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. - Revenue already acted upon the Final Order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal. In our considered view, when the Revenue had taken steps to implement to the Final Order of the Tribunal, there is no scope to recall the order dated 06.07.2010. Hence, we do not find any force in the submission of the Learned Advocate on merit. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to recall the order dated 06.07.2010 - Restoration denied. - Application No.: E/COD/10107, 10109/2015, E/ROA/10106, 10108/2015 In Appeal No.: E/1783-1784/2003 - Order No. M/11340-11343/2015 - Dated:- 10-11-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj.) (c) Parkash Fabricators Galvanizers P. Ltd. vs Union of India 2001 (130) E.L.T. 433 (Del.) (d) Kiran Ship Breaking Corporation vs Customs, Excise Service Tax 2011 (269) E.L.T. 491 (Guj.) 3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposed these applications. He submits that they have not explained any reason for delay of filing application. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of L. J. Synthetics Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-I 2011 (270) E.L.T. 507 (Guj.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as the application for restoration of appeal was filed after 7 years. The facts of the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008. However at the request of the appellant the same were subsequently restored on 10.02.09 and fixed for hearing on 08.04.09. 2. There after the matter has come on board number of times. Every time it was being adjourned with a warning to the appellant that no further adjournment would be granted. The appellants are absent again today. We find no reasons to keep the appeals on board. The history, as detailed above, reflect upon the appellants intentions not to pursue the matters before Tribunal. We are left with no choice but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly. 5. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirtiumar Jawaharlal Shah (supra) held that even, there is no limitation for filing applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal that the matter was adjourned in several occasions at the request of the appellant and nobody turned up on behalf of the appellant. It is noted that in the month of July 2012, the appellant received the copy of the order of the Tribunal from the Registry, but, no application was filed by the applicant till 23.01.2015. It is noted that the appellant is a private limited company. There is a long delay of about 5 years. On the identical situation, the Hon ble High Court in the case of L. J. Synthetics Mills (supra) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 9. Subsequently, after a period of seven years thereafter, the appellants mov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit in the usual manner; that no supporting documentary evidence to indicate that the owner Shri Jivatram Laxmandas Dariyani was in fact unwell and was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit has been produced. Nothing has been brought on record to dislodge the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, Thus, in absence of any proper facts being brought on record, no sufficient cause had been made out by the appellants for condoning the delay caused in the filing of the restoration applications. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 17th June 2009 made by the Tribunal rejecting the applications for restoration on the ground of laches on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 06.07.2010-recovery thereof-m/r. Please refer to your letter/Fax F. No.V (Misc.)/CORRSP/RC/15-16 dated 28.08.2015 on the above subject. In this connection, JRO reported that -Vide subject CESTAT order, CESTAT has rejected the party s appeal to restore their application due to non prosecution. Several letters have been issued to the party for payment of the dues as the CESTAT vide order dated 06.07.2015 upheld the OIA No. YPP/239-240/SRT/2003/1116 dated 18.02.2003. No payment of the dues are made by the party till date. Since huge arrears in other matters are also pending against the party, the land Building and Machinery of the unit are attached by the department under Panchnama dated 31.01.2006 for recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
