bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1074 OF 2008 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.326 OF 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Appellant Vs. M/s.T.K.Warana SSK Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao a/w. Rutuja Ambekar for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the respondent. 2. We were taken through the affidavit filed on record to seek condonation of 262 days’ delay in filing the above appeal. From the facts, it is clear that almost more than 10 months were taken just to appoint an Advocate from the panel maintained by the Ministry and thereafter more than two months were taken to draft and file an affidavit. The cause shown in the appeal can hardly be said to be sufficient. Even otherwise the duty impact is very small. Taking overall view of the matter, no case is made out to condone delay in filing appeal. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of Notice of Motion, appeal papers be consigned to record. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)