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]

Bombay High Court

The Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... vs Apar Industries Ltd on 9 July, 2019

Author: M.S. Sonak

Bench: M.S. Sanklecha, M.S. Sonak

 Uday S. Jagtap                                          461-19-NMA-19=.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                       NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 461 OF 2019
                                      IN
                    CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 37 OF 2019

The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Daman                    .. Applicant

     In the matter between
The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Daman                    .. Appellant

      v/s.
M/s. Apar Industries Ltd.                               .. Respondent

Ms. P.S. Cardozo I/b Ram Ochani for the applicant Mr. Jas Sanghvi I/b PDS Legal for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & M.S. SONAK, J.J. DATED : 9 th JULY, 2019 P.C.

1. This application has been taken out for condonation of 2462 days delay in filing an appeal from the order dated 27th December, 2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The affidavit-in-support of the motion points out that the delay in filing the appeal to this Court was on account of the fact that the applicant had filed an appeal within time before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court from the order dated 3rd September, 2012, being Appeal 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 22:27:54 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 461-19-NMA-19=.doc No.445 of 2012 and the appeal was admitted on 3 rd September, 2012. It was only when it was came up for final hearing on 21 st December, 2018, the applicant realized that the appeal from the impugned order of the Tribunal would lie before this Court and not before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and, therefore, withdrew the appeal before the Gujarat High Court with liberty to file an appeal before this Court. Immediately thereafter, the applicant has filed this appeal.

3. In view of the above, we find that there is sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before this Court.

4. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

 (M.S. SONAK, J.)                               (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)




                                                                           2 of 2




::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019                    ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 22:27:54 :::