TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed for delay in filing - failure to meet 10-day deadline for appeal initiation.</h1> <h3>PURVANCHAL POLY-PACK PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> PURVANCHAL POLY-PACK PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 376 (Tribunal) Issues:Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original dated 9-2-1990 by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stating that a Writ Petition directed them to file the appeal within ten days from 28-8-1990. The appellants argued that the appeal was filed on 21-9-1990, within ten days of receiving the certified copy of the order on 12-9-1990. The respondent contended that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated ten days and should be dismissed as time-barred. The respondent emphasized that the certified copy was received on 29-8-1990, not 12-9-1990 as claimed by the appellants. The respondent argued that there was no legal requirement to enclose the certified copy with the appeal and that the appellants could have filed the appeal within ten days, mentioning the High Court's direction in the appeal itself.The Tribunal noted that appeals under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 must be filed within three months of the communicated order, with provision for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The appellants claimed that the High Court's direction in the Writ Petition allowed them to file the appeal within ten days from 28-8-1990. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was not filed within ten days of the order, as required. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the ten-day period should be counted from the receipt of the certified copy, stating that there was no legal necessity to enclose the certified copy with the appeal. The Tribunal held that the appellants' delay in applying for the certified copy of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 141 of 1990 showed negligence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. No other points were raised during the hearing, and the application for condonation of delay was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and related applications.
TaxTMI 