ESS KAY INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is a proprietor firm and the affairs of the firm is run by husband of the proprietor in his capacity as Manager.

(2.) NOTICE of motion.

(3.) THESE appeals are directed against order dated 21 -8 -2009, 2009 (248) E.L.T. 827 passed by the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). An application for condonation of 73 days of delay in filing of appeal was filed before the Tribunal but the same was dismissed. It has come on record that appellant -firm is proprietorship concern with Mrs. Vishakha Arora as its sole Proprietor. The legal and other matters are looked after by her husband Sh. Rajinder Arora in his capacity as Manager of the firm. He was ill from 2 -3 -2009 to 25 -5 -2009. The appeal was required to be filed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It has remained undisputed that copy of the order has been received on 3 -1 -2009 and the appeal could not have been instituted on or before 2 -4 -2009. The appeal was actually instituted on 15 -6 -2009. In the process delay of 73 days has occurred.