Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Limited vs Cce, Allahabad on 19 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(132)ELT251(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G.R. Sharma
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for restoration of the appeal stating though a copy of the order dt.19.1.98 was received in the applicant's office on 19.2.98 yet no request for restoration of the appeal could be made immediately as the sale incharge and other workers of the factory went on strike; that on 30.1.2001 a letter from the range Superintendent of Central Excise was received stating that an order dismissing the appeal of the assessee was passed on 9.1.98 and duty has not been deposited; that some other officers of the applicant's company also retired and the case was lost sight.
2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the fact that the factory remained closed and concerned officials were not attending the office, therefore, there was delay in filing application for restoration of appeal. He submits that on receipt of the letter from the Range Superintendent, the applicant immediately made a request for restoration of the appeal. He, therefore prays that having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case the delay may be condoned and application for restoration of appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri Ashok Mehta, ld. DR opposes the request and submits that the order dt. 9.1.98 dismissing the appeal was received by the appellant on 19.2.98 and after that the appellant took action only on 17.2.2001 that is much after a delay of three years. He submits that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicant for filing the application for restoration of the appeal and, therefore the application may be rejected.
4. On careful consideration of the pleas of both sides, we find that the order dismissing the appeal was received by the applicant on 19.2.98. Sufficient cause has not been shown for this inordinate delay. In the absence of sufficient cause beyond the control of the applicant, we are not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant. In the circumstances, the application for restoration of the appeal is rejected.