w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Prabha Metal Industries v/s CCE Ahmedabad

    Appeal No.E/13855 of 2013-SM (Application No. E/COD/13571 of 2013, E/Stay/13572 of 2013) Arising Out of: OIA No.115 of 2013/(Ahd-II)CE/AK/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.18.06.2013

    Decided On, 28 March 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. H.K. THAKUR
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    For the Appellant: Ajay S. Dubey, Proprietor (In Person), Advocate..For the Respondent: K.J. Kinariwala, A.R.



Judgment Text

H.K. Thakur, J.

1. This COD application has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of 3 weeks in filing the appeal and the stay application. When the case was called out for hearing, the proprietor of the appellant in person appeared before us and argued that there was a delay in filing the appeal because he was a patient of chronic diabetes and his parents were suffering from various health related complications.

2. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the OIA dt.18.06.2013 could have been received in the month of July 2013 only and the appeal was required to be filed by the end of September 2013. Accordingly, it was his case that the delay in filing the appeal is much more than 3 weeks given by the appellant. It was also his case that no justifiable reason has been given by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay.

3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that the OIA No. 115/2013/(Ahd-II)CE/ AK/Commr(A)/Ahd, dated 18.06.2013 was received by the appellant. However, the exact date of receipt of the OIA dt.18.06.2013 has not been mentioned by the appellant in the appeal memoranda. After giving a time of 10 days for postal delivery, the appellant could have received the OIA by the end of June 2013 and the appeal was thus required to be filed by the appellant by the end of September 2013. However, the appeal was received by the CESTAT Registry on 22.11.2013. The reason given by the appellant for seeking condoning the delay is that the proprietors parents were suffering from various health problems and the appellant himself is suffering from chronic diabetes. No treatment related papers have been furnished by the appellant to establish that he was under any medical treatment or that his parents were having any serious ailments during the relevant period.

4. In view of the above, the appellant has not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e stay application and the appeal before CESTAT. Accordingly, the COD application filed by the appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application and the appeal filed by the appellant are also dismissed.
O R