MANOJ PROCESSORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Jitendra Malkan waives service of rule for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10.5.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal refused to condone the delay of 84 days and thereby dismissed the application for condonation of delay (Annexure-D) in Appeal No.F/814/04 on the ground that delay was not sufficiently explained.

(3.) Mr.Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner had explained delay of 84 days in his application (Annexure-D) wherein it has been stated that Mr.Kishor Agrawal, Sole Proprietor of M/s.Manoj Processors was advised complete bed rest between the period from 10.12.2003 to 23.2.2004 for which medical certificates were also issued. But, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal has simply discarded the same by stating that the said certificates do not inspire any confidence. In our considered opinion the approach of the learned Tribunal was wholly erroneous in discarding the medical certificates in this fashion. One more ground assigned by the learned Tribunal in its order for rejecting the application for condonation of delay in the impugned order at Annexure-E is that there was authorized signatory of the proprietary concern and, therefore, the proprietor could have been directed or instructed his authorized signatory to prefer the appeal and file it before the Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation. This suggests the condition of the sole proprietor of the petitioner was good, which in fact not correct. If the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm was bed ridden and advised complete bed rest for couple of months, then one cannot even expect this type of approach.