TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nigam, ASC, K.C. Sinha and S.P. Kesarwani, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal for the appellant. Sri S.P. Kesarwani appears for the respondents. This Central Excise & Custom Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has been filed against the order dated 3-3-2005 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 774 (Tri.-Del.)], by which the Custom Excise & Service T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the explanation for condoning the delay, to be sufficient. The Tribunal found that the Advocate for the assessee-appellant had appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) for personal hearing. Even at that time, if the factory was closed, the new address for correspondence was not intimated to the Commissioner (Appeals). It was submitted before the Tribunal, that the Managing Director of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three months from the date on which the order sought to be filed against, is communicated to the Central Excise Commissioner or as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal. Under sub-section (5), the Tribunal has power to condone the delay, if there is sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period prescribed. 7. In the present case the Tribunal has recorded the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, atleast, in this appeal. 8. We further find that the affidavit in this case has been sworn by Sri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Office Assistant in the office of the appellant, and which also shows that there are other employees working in the company, who could have been deputed, to file the appeal in time. The appellant was itself responsible for not communicating the correct address. In fact there w....