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 1]

Bombay High Court

The Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... vs Cnh Industrial (India) ... on 14 September, 2018

Author: Riyaz I. Chagla

Bench: M.S. Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla

                         Uday S. Jagtap                                                331-18-NMA-11=.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                         NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 331 OF 2018 
                                                           IN
                                      CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 51 OF 2018
                                                             
                         The Pr. Commissioner of CGST & Central
                         Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate          .. Applicant 
                               In the matter between
                         The Pr. Commissioner of CGST & Central
                         Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate          .. Appellant 
                               v/s. 
                         CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. 
                         (Erstwhile M/s. New Holland Fiat
                         (India) Ltd.                                 ..Respondent

Mr. Pradeep Jetly a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for the applicant / orig. appellant None for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J. DATED : 14 th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

P.C.

1. None appears for the respondent despite service.

2. This motion seeks condonation of 213 days delay in filing the accompanying appeal from the order dated 2nd February, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal.

3. We have perused the affidavit dated 13 th March, 2018 of Mr. Ramesh Vajge, Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CE, Mumbai East Commissionerate. We find that the reasons stated for the delay in Digitally signed by Uday Uday Shivaji Shivaji Jagtap Date: 1 of 2 Jagtap 2018.09.17 17:10:08 +0530 Uday S. Jagtap 331-18-NMA-11=.doc filing the appeal was on the ground that there was change in the name of the respondent assessee which led to the change of the Commissionerate in charge of the respondent assessee. Consequently, files had to be transferred to the jurisdictional Commissionerate in view of the change in the name. We find that the reasons indicated in support of the motion sufficiently explain the delay in filing the accompanying appeal.

4. Accordingly, motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 2 of 2