Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Maithan Ispat Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise & on 5 June, 2015

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
      EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
      
      
        		     MA-75520/14,S.P.-75519/14
				   AND
           Excise Appeal No. 75403/2014
      	
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.40/CE/BBSR-I/2013 dated-18/11/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I)

For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

======================================================

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 ?
M/s. Maithan Ispat Ltd.
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, BBSR-I RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE Sri Sanjay Bhowmik, Advocate FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S.K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 05/06/2015 ORDER NO : FO/A/75277/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA Heard both sides.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. Explaining the reasons, the Ld. Advocate Shri Bhowmik for the applicant submits that the Indirect taxes Manager Shri S.K. Patra, has inadvertently kept the order-in-appeal in his personal almirah and accordingly forgotten to file the appeal in time. The Ld. Advocate submits that the mistake is bonafide and be condoned.
3. I do not find the reasons explained by the Ld. Advocate and mentioned in their application could be considered as sufficient cause, warranting condonation of the delay. On the other hand, it is complete negligence on the part of the Appellant. In the result, MA (COD) is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and stay application are also dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 5/06/15 (D.M. MISRA) Judicial Member k.b/-

Excise Appeal No. 75403/2014 2