TL' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH , . h^^lnn Pi^^i&l ^ . • . • . • ysi^p^^ ^^^siis "TENT^Z ^^^£A' UNDER SECTION 35 (G) OF THE GUSTQMS^eT, 1944 f A^si^ O^OP^W AfPeAL.no'2^0^o^.{ M/S Mithilesh & Co., Through Santosh Agarwal, Authorized Signatory, Aged about 51 year^, S/o Shri S.K. Agarwal, R/o 304/3, Shyam Vatika, Choubey Colony, Raipur, CG /1. 2. CCE Raipur, Office of Commissioner, Cenfaral Excise and Customs, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) The Customs Excise & Servrice Tax Appellate Tribunal through Registrar, West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066 ^cv^^StSL ^-•Kcij-^ftch MlSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 35 (G) OF THE GUSTOMO ACT, 1944 Ap^ HIGHCOURT OF CMHATTISGARH :BILASPUR Q Division Bench : APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'bleShri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. TaxCaseNo.12of2011 M/s Mithilesh & Co. Versus CCE Raipur & Another (Appeal under Section 35-G ofthe Central Excise Act, 1944) Present:- Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Maneesh Sharma & Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates for the respondents. QRDER (Passed on this 8th dayof December, 2011) 1. This is an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Aet, 1944 (for short "the Act, 1944") arising from the order dated 11-6-2008 passed bythe Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for want of non-compliance of the terms of the stay order No.172/08-Ex dated 25-1-2008 3. The instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 936 days. The grounds taken in the application (I.A.No.5) for condition of delay are as under: ".....becQuse of some unavoidable functions in the family the same was transmitted to the local counsel at Raipur aftera period oftime and later on after consultation the satne was sent to the counsel at Bilaspurto do the needful and meanwhilethe limitation period of 6 months was over. .....it was found that for non-production of certain relevant documents and orders this appeal was npt filed and only when the notice of demand to defaulter was issued to the appellant after a period of two (2) years of the order, the appellant came to know about the action being initiated against the appellant That the appellant coordinated with its counsel from New Delhi and Raipurand procured all the relevant documents for /: Gowri filing the present appeal and preferred this appeal so that the earlier lack of coordination could not hamper the proceeding." In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (CG) v. M/s Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Durg (CG)1, this Court relying on the decisions ofthe Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Taxv. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and Lanka Venkateshwarlu (Dead) By Lrs. V. State ofAndhra Pradesh &0thers3, held that "for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, theaFpellant has to give sufficient cause explaining the delay, step by step. In normal course,the deiay should be explained on dayto day basis." In view offoregoing, we do not find any reasons, more so sufficient reasons, enabling this Courtto condone the delay. Even ofherwise, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The same is just & proper and doe6 not warrant any interference of this Court. As an upshot, the appeai is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge 1 Tax Case No.44 of 2011 (decided on 19-10-2011) 2MANU/SC/0831/2011 3 (2011)48cc 363