bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.958 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO.958 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO.958 OF 2006 IN IN IN CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L)NO.112 OF 2006 EXCISE APPEAL (L)NO.112 OF 2006 EXCISE APPEAL (L)NO.112 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Vipras Castings Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.S.D.Bhosale for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.P.BHANGALE, A.P.BHANGALE, A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH JUNE, 2008 : 5TH JUNE, 2008 : 5TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 203 days delay in filing the above Appeal which is beyond the statutory prescribed period of 180 days. Strangely, the above Notice of Motion which has been taken out and registered on 22nd March,2006. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Desai fairly states that even till date, no attempt has been made to serve the above Notice of Motion on the Respondents. Mr.Desai, the learned Senior Counsel is unable to show as to what attempts have been made to serve the Respondents since March,2006 till today. 2. Even otherwise, we have perused the Notice of Motion and Affidavit-in-support thereof. The Affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion shows, that certain documents and proceedings like reply to Show Cause Notice, Memo of Appeal filed by Respondents etc. required to be annexed to the present Appeal, could not be traced and consequently delay has been occurred in filing the above Appeal. 3. However, no details of whatsoever nature as to when the said documents have been really traced are given in the Affidavit. Under these circumstances, we are not at all satisfied with the reasons given for the delay caused. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal (L) No.112 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (A.P.BHANGALE,J.) (A.P.BHANGALE,J.) (A.P.BHANGALE,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)