Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Micromechanics P. Ltd., Vikram M. ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 18 May, 2004
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Heard the Ld. DR, the appellants being absent and considered the applications.
2.(a) It is found that the order is admittedly received on 7.7.2003 and the appeals have been filed on 1.3.04 the delay has been explained after admitting that the appeal was required to be filed on or before 7.10.2003, on the grounds of the appellant Director to be suffering and being very ill and bed-ridden at the material time, resulting in his inability to even attend the office during the said period. An Affidavit has been placed on record stating as follows:
AFFIDAVIT "I the undersigned, Vikram H. Pandya, Indian Hindu, am a director of M/s. Miscromechaincs Pvt. Ltd. I solemnly affirm that, I Have received the copy of the order in appeal bearing No. 241 to 24/2003/137 to 140 (Raj)/Commr(A)/Raj dated 3.7.2003 on 7.7.2003, but due to my ill health I was advised to have bed rest for the said period. I was not attending the office and hence though my office has received the said order in appeal, I could not initiate the actions for further procedure, Because of my ill health neither I engage an Advocate or proceed to file the appeal or anything else.
I verified the facts and figures mentioned herein above, and affirm the correctness of the same.
Place: Rajkot Date 26/2/04 Vikram H. Pandya."
(b) The Affidavit of B.H. Dekiwadia of the appellants herein,on a reading reveals that he was a Technical Engineer of the assessee had handed over copy of the impugned order to Shri Vikram Pandya, director of the assessee, company, and that the director was ill and therefore no proper action could be taken. Similar affidavit has been filed by Mr. J.M Akbari who was a Supervisor in the assessee company & third appellant herein, No medical certificates of Shri Vikram Pandya being sick or ill have been produced to substantiate the fact of serious sickness. The affidavit of the other appellant only reveal a casual approach.
3.(a) The reasons given, are therefore found to be not satisfactory to explain the delay nor the reasons explain each days delay.
Therefore the applications for condonation of delay are required.
(b) Since the condonation of delay applications have been rejected. The appeals also stand dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court)