KOYENCO BAZAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay. In support of the application filed by the party for condonation of delay, it was submitted by the Counsel that there is delay of 146 days. He said that at the first instance, the order was passed by the Commissioner on 8 -11 -2000 and against that order the party has filed an application for modification of the order and the same has been considered and the modification order was passed on 31 -7 -2001 and again they requested for further modification of the order which was rejected by the Commissioner and this resulted in delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He requested that in view of this position, as the party was under the bona fide impression that Commissioner would consider their request for further modification on account of the closure of the appellants factory, they did not file appeal before the Tribunal in time.

(2.) IN support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deccan Sales Corporation and Another v. CCE reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 695 (Bom).

(3.) SHRI Narasimha Murthy, learned DR, appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal for which sufficient cause has not been shown. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is settled position now that to condone the delay not only there must be cause but it must be sufficient. In the instant case sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellants to condone the delay as rightly pointed out by the DR. In the absence of sufficient cause, we are not inclined to condone the delay. In the result condonation application is hereby rejected. Consequently appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.