TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany for another about over 3 months i.e. till 22/12/2011, why the company did not take over the relevant central excise files and papers from the said authorized signatory. This clearly shows that the appellant company has been completely negligent in managing their affairs and they were not bothered about their liability and obligations under the Central Excise laws. The learned advocate has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has filed an application for condonation of delay which is for 10 months and 15 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.89 90/2011 dt. 14/11/2011. Heard the learned advocate Shri V.V. Ravikumar who appeared on behalf of the applicant. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant mentions that the impugned OIA was served on them on 29/11/2011 and the time limit as per Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the company persuaded him to stay back for sometime and Mr. Patric Staunton continued for two more months and then again on 15/12/2011, he issued one month notice vide his resignation letter which was accepted on 22/12/2011 itself. However the learned advocate explains that Mr.Patric Staunton, authorized signatory left the company without intimation and without handing over the files. In the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay of 10 months and 15 days in filing the appeal. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, when there is no justifiable explanation for the long delay of 10 months and 15 days, there is no option but to reject the appeal as time-barred under the provisions of Section 35B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (Operative part of this order pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
