BHAVESH H DHRUVE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Bhavesh H Dhruv is the Director of M/s Microchip Computers Private Ltd.. Premises of his company was searched on 17.08.1996 by the officers of the Central Excise and thereafter show cause notice dated 20.02.1997 was issued to which the petitioner had replied on 05.06.1997. After hearing, the Dy.Commissioner, Central Excise, Rajkot passed order dated 12.03.1998 and released the goods seized from the premises of M/s Ace Software and confirmed the duty for the remaining part of the show cause notice. The same was challenged by the petitioner as well as the company in appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot - respondent no.2 being appeal nos.F.No.V2(MISC)719/Raj/98 and F.No.V2(MISC)717/Raj/98 respectively. However, both the appeals were partly allowed by common order dated 29.09.2000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, remaining portion of the order by which their appeals were not accepted, the petitioner and company filed joint appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short "CEGAT"). When it had come up for hearing before the CEGAT, it was brought to the notice that when two separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), then two separate appeals were also required to be filed before the CEGAT though order was common in both the appeals. Accordingly, the common appeal filed before the CEGAT was treated as an appeal filed by the company and numbered as E/3680/00-Bom and stay application was numbered as E/Stay-2699/00-Bom filed in the said appeal. The said appeal was thereafter admitted and stay was also granted by the CEGAT on 31.08.2001. (Annexure `D').

(2.) Thereafter, a separate appeal was filed by the present petitioner as a director of the company being appeal no.E/2756/01-Mum with a stay application no.E/Stay-2262/01. However, the said appeal was delayed by some time. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay being application no. E/COD-751/01-Mum in the said appeal. Surprisingly, the said application for condoning delay was rejected by the CEGAT by its order dated 23.01.2003. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The CEGAT dismissed the delay application of the petitioner by an order dated 23.01.2003. It is a brief order which is reproduced as under :