Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 23 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Application No. ST/COD/1556/2009-Mum in Application No. ST/S/1246/2009-Mum.in Appeal No.ST/184/2009-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKD/109/NSK/2008 dated 28/05/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Nasik. ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik. :
Respondent Appearance Shri V.R. Kelkar, Consultant for Appellant Shri Navneet Additional Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 23/01/2012
Date of decision : 23/01/2012
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order along with stay application and application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. To proceed the case, first we have to deal with application for condonation of delay.
2. As per the appellants version they have received the impugned order dt. 28.5.2008 on 6.6. 2008, against the said order appeal was to be filed before this Tribunal on or before 5th September 2008. The appeal was filed on 25.7.2009 with a delay of more than 300 days, the reasons are to be stated that during the period, the director who was dealing with the excise matters was suffering from hypertension. On 14.9.2008, he got bullet injury, thereafter, he was under treatment of the doctor who advised to take bed rest which caused delay in filing the appeal.
3. Heard the learned Consultant on behalf of the appellant and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the record, we find that no supporting evidence has been produced by the appellant before this Tribunal that the director, who was dealing with the excise matter, was suffering from hypertention. No medical report is showing that during the impugned period he was suffering from hypertention and was advised to take bed rest by the doctor. The medical record produced before us shows that the director got bullet injury and thereafter he was under medical treatment. No record has been produced before us regarding receiving the bullet injury i.e. whether any FRI has been lodged or not in supportnb of the contention raised in the application for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay as the reason stated in the applications are not satisfactory in the absence of any supporting evidence. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently appeal as well as stay application are also dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (P.R.Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm ??
??
??
??
2