2011 (12) TMI 500

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 petitioners have challenged an order dated 2-11-2011 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) by which the Tribunal refused to condone delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the company. Against the petitioners, proceedings were executed under the Central Excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cessive order in the nature of review. Simultaneously, in view of the fact that the petitioners had not complied with the order dated 19-2-2008 requiring certain amount of pre-deposit, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners also. 3. It is against this order that the petitioners approached the Tribunal. Admittedly, there was delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. The petitioners filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... produced certificate of Doctors treating the Director. Tribunal without assigning proper reasons dismissed the delay condonation application. 5. We are however, of the view that the petitioners had failed to explain inordinate delay of 927 days in filing the appeal. We have briefly perused the documents presented by the petitioners before the Tribunal to show ill health of petitioner No. ....