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

Bhati Constructions vs C.C.E. , Meerut I on 1 November, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi



COURT-I



 Date of hearing/decision: 1.11.2013



Condonation Application No.58977 of 2013

 Stay Application No.58976 of 2013 and

Service Tax Appeal No.58339 of 2013



Arising out of the order in appeal No.23-ST/MRT-I/2011 dated 27.12.2011  passed by the Commissioner  ,Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut I.



For Approval and Signature:



Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member



1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
  
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?
 
  

 



Bhati Constructions						...    	Appellant



Vs.



C.C.E.  , Meerut I						.  		Respondent 

Appearance:

Present Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri R. Puri, A.R. for respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member Final Order No. 58209/2013 Per Justice G. Raghuram:
The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut I dated 27.12.2011, with a delay of 15 days. The cause pleaded for the delay is that the order was received by an employee of the appellant some time in January, 2012, the employee left employment towards the end of January, 2012 without handing over the papers to any other employee; and former employee did so due to oversight.

2. No satisfactory explanation is provided to justify condonation of delay. Consequently, the COD application is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is rejected.

(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Sahab Singh) Technical Member scd/ 1