GOSSON AIR CONDITIONING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 25 -9 -2003 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) in Appeal No. E/COD/122/ 03 -NB(S) & STAY/1060/03 -NB (S) with E/Appeal No. 1658/03 -NB(S). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 105 days in preferring the appeal.

(2.) SINCE the controversy raised in the present writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. It would suffice to note that the petitioner, aggrieved by the decision, dated 8 -8 -2002, of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Commissioner') dismissing the appeal in limine on account of failure on its part to comply with the order of pre -deposit, had preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Since the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application for condonation of delay was also filed along with it. In the said application, it was pleaded that since the factory of the petitioner was lying closed since February, 1999, one of its representatives, namely, Karanvir Singh was called to the office of the Central Excise Department and was served with order dated 8 -8 -2002; the said Karanvir Singh shifted to Delhi without informing the management about the receipt of the said order and when later on, the management of the petitioner learnt about the same, it took steps to file the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay.

(3.) MR . Jagmohan Bansal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has not only failed to consider the cause for delay in filing the appeal in its correct perspective, it has also gone wrong in not acceding to the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner on account of his personal difficulty, particularly when it was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that even the Director of the petitioner was sick. Learned Counsel has submitted that after the factory had been closed down, the afore -named employee had also left the petitioner because of non -payment of his salary.