2023 (3) TMI 1130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order was affirmed. We have heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 2. Records show that on 11.05.2016, the matter was heard and Shri L.P. Asthana, Ms. Reena Khair, Ms. Rita Jha and Ms. Shreya Dahia argued on behalf of the appellant while Shri Ranjan Khanna and Shri Rajiv Gupta appeared on behalf of the department. After considering the submissions of both sides, a detailed order was passed on 09.08.2016 recording the reasons and holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and rejecting the appeal. 3. The present application has been filed on 25.01.2023 more than six years after t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for restoration of appeal has been filed after more than six years which is an inordinate delay and, therefore, the final order cannot be recalled at this stage. He relies on the judgment of Tribunal in the case of M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi [2022 (8) TMI 886-CESTAT-New Delhi]. Para 22 of which is reproduced below: "22 In the present case, as noted above, the application was filed by the appellant for recall of the order dated 07.07.2015 only on 31.05.2022. The appellant had throughout contested before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court that it should not be required to deposit the amount because the un-amended provisions of Section 35 of the Customs Act would be applicable. Even....