2006 (10) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been preferred under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") by the revenue against the order dated 13-7-2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [Now known as Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)]. 2. The period to which the present case pertains, a petition was maintainable before the Court of competent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction original adjudicating authority functions. On 27-5-2004 the counsel in Delhi High Court sent the case back, which was entrusted to the counsel in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 3. It is patent that the judgment of Delhi High Court relied upon is reported in the year 2002, though dated 25-3-2001, and there is no explanation as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or condonation of delay. Needful has not been done. Letter has been circulated seeking adjournment for doing same. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the revenue stated that now the amended petition is available. 4. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is hardly any explanation for the gross delay in filing the appeal which was clearly a case of gross negligence. The ....