TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on them - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has attempted to draw an inference by a statement that, since the other appellants has preferred an appeal against the Order-in-Original and the non-filing of the appeal by the petitioner would substantiate that the order was not served on them - I am not in agreement with such a submission made. Just because other appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs (Appeals) to condone the delay exceeding 30 days. The reasoning given by the Commissioner has been sustained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) in the case of Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, stating that the Commissioner is not empowered to condone the delay that exceeds 30 days. As such, I d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration of the fact that the High Court should also not entertain the request of condoning the delay in filing an appeal. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions reported in AIR 1958 SC 956 (Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re); AIR 1980 SC 1789 (Minerva Mills vs Union of India); 1997 (3) SCC 261 (L.Chandra Kumar vs Union of India) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It would not be out of case to mention here that the question as to whether the case is of the rarest of the rare, could be determined only by the facts and circumstances of each and every case. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner challenges the impugned order, on the ground that the Order-in-Original was not served on them and in support of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, was not served on the petitioner and the same cannot be cited as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 8. At this juncture, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that there is sufficient proof before them to substantiate that the Order-in-Original was duly served on the petitioner. This Court cannot loose sight on such an objection being made by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
