https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268066 The note states that adjournment was declined because the Tribunal found no sufficient cause, despite parallel High Court proceedings in a liquidation matter. It further records that restoration of the appeal was refused because the First Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory filing period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the ratio of M/s Singh Enterprises was applied. Service by pasting the order at the factory gate, in the presence of the security guard, and the nearly six-month delay were treated as sufficient to sustain dismissal of the restoration request. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268066 The note states that adjournment was declined because the Tribunal found no sufficient cause, despite parallel High Court proceedings in a liquidation matter. It further records that restoration of the appeal was refused because the First Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory filing period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the ratio of M/s Singh Enterprises was applied. Service by pasting the order at the factory gate, in the presence of the security guard, and the nearly six-month delay were treated as sufficient to sustain dismissal of the restoration request. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268066