2012 (8) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (A.R.) for the Department   Per Dr. D. M. Misra :   The present miscellaneous application is for seeking condonation of delay of about 11 years 2 months in filing the present appeal. The ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant received the Order-in-Appeal on 6th February, 2001 and since they were not satisfied with the said order, they have filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filing review application being not prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the delay has been caused. He has submitted that the said delay is a bonafide delay and in view of the provision contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, ought to be condoned. He has referred to the following judgments :   (i) State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO 2005 (183) ELT 337 (S.C.) ; (ii) Collec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the applicant are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the applicant did not dispute the date of receipt of the O/A No.75/Cal.IV/2000 dated 22.12.2000 as 16.02.2001. We also find that in the opening page of the said Order-in-Appeal, it is mentioned as Notes of Guidelines for the persons aggrieved by the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deness nor could able to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The reason shown as pursuing the wrong remedy by filing a Review Application before the Commissioner (Appeals) (in spite of being guided in the preamble to the Order-in-Appeal) resulting into an inordinate delay of eleven years and two months (4075 days), in our view, not a sufficient cause warranting condonation of th....