2016 (4) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of more than 2200 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Department. 3. These appeals arise out of three sets of cases. In one set of cases, a proprietary concern by name M/s.Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai, its sole proprietor B.S.Garg, a broker, who arranged for selling their goods and two persons, who sold the goods under invoices, became the noticees. In the second set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s.Goyal Ispat Udyog, which now appear to have been converted into a proprietary concern, was the main noticee. Its proprietor Sriram Goyal, four brokers of the proprietary concern and sever....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ations for condonation of delay comprised of seven paragraphs. Paragraphs 5 and 6 alone sought to project the semblance of a reason, which is actually an apology of a reason for condonation of delay. These paragraphs read as follows : "5. Based on the directions of the Board, a single appeal was filed inadvertently naming M/s. Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai-57 as the only respondent vide appeal No.E/380/2005 before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai. 6. The Registry accepted the appeal on 16.5.2005. However, the Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, directed the Department to file an appeal making all the other noticees, on whom penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 was proposed in the show ....