M/S RAJESH STRIPS LTD V. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE and ORS

TAXC/56/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Rajesh Strips Limited, the appellant, who filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeal was filed with a delay of 93 days, for which the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The court, relying on precedents, held that the delay must be explained in detail on a day-to-day basis, which the appellant failed to do. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without further consideration of its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691535 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (CG) v. M/s Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Lanka Venkateshwarlu (Dead) By LRs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise Act, 1944
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSHINA ALI; MANISH SHAR MA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH SHRIVASTAVA; HARSHWARDHAN
• Keywords: Central Excise Appeal; Condonation of delay; Application for condonation of delay
• Section: 35 G

Judgement Text

"® %A< ONsio^ ssns IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^' ^- T^-X 04^(^ SEAPPE^S No. $009) £o ^ APPELLANT: l^. 1^' z^^i^^ ....•••^'^^^^...- ^.\"^•-\"'\" ^-^ ^ RESPONDENTS M/S. RAJESH STRIPS LIMITED, 535-C, URLA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS 1. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I), CENTRAL EXCI8E BUILDING, TIKRAPARA, RAIPUR(C.G.) 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR (C.G.) ^ 3. CUSTOMS, EXCISE& SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, EXISE APPEAL BRANCH, WEST BLOCK N0.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 35-G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 C§9 «,. HLGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Tax Case No. 56 OF 2011 Apoellant : M/s. Rajesh Strips Limlted Respondents VERSUS Commissioner Centrai Excise & Others CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 35-G OF THE CENTRAL EXC'SEACT.1944 D.B. Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'bie Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava with Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocates for the appeilant. Ms. Naushina Ali with Shri Manish Sharma, Advocates for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on thjs 13(\" day of February, 2012$ I.A.No.1 This is an appiication for condonation of deiay in filing the appea!. This is an appea! under Sectlon 35-G of the Centrai Excise Act, 1944 (for short \"the Act, 1944\") arising from theorder dated 20.11.2008 passed in Appea! No.6135/2004-EX[DB] passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Deihi (for short \"the TribunaF). This appea! has been filed with a delay of 93 days without offering proper expianation for the same. Learned counsei appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 was communicated to the petitsoner vide covering memo dated 02.12.2008 and the same was received by the appeiiant on 12.12.2003. Thereafter, the impugned order was p!aced before the Board of Directore for taklng further action in the matter. In this process, the delay has been caused, which is bonafide and deserves to be condoned. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appeilant. K 2 4. The instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 93 days without offenng any satisfactory explanation. The appellant is a company having suffident financial resources and legal advisor. There is no reason asto why the appellant took such a long period for approaching this Court. The delay has not been explained on day to day basis. 5. In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhslai (CG) v. M/s Sewa Slngh Oberai & Company, Dusy (CG)1, this Court rdying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of income Tax v. fndian Hote!s Co. Ltd. and Lanka Venkateshwartu (Dead) Byirs. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Othe^3, held that Tor condonation of cfetey in filing the appeal, the appeUant has to glve sufficient cause expSaining the de!ay, step by step. In norma! coufBe, the deiay should be explained on day to day basis\" 6. !n view of foregoing, we do not find any reasons, more so sufficient reasons, to condone the delay. Thus, the application for condonation ofdelayis rejected. 7. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Ashok/ Amlt. 1 Tax Case No.44 of 2011 (decided on 19-10-201 1) 2MANU/.SQD831/2011 3 /9 2011) 4 SCC 363 "