TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een days in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the questions raised in the appeal are; the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) being Appeal No. 411 against the order dated 27th November, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad. The said appeal was heard on 3rd February, 2003 and ultimately disposed of on 17th November, 2003. The appellant filed a central excise appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application, which was filed for condonation of delay, the case took by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The company was very much in existence. The change of the officers or leaving of the offices in the company did not stop the running of limitation for filing the appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal which was received by the company on 17-11-2003 through courier. The Director or the officials were on the pay-roll of the company at that time. It only shows that the company was too negligent and careless in handling the matter, and as such it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The impugned order had attained finality by lapse of time and the Revenue has acquired a valuable right there under and that right cannot be taken away from them simply because the appellant's company was before the BIFR and the package was fin....