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.1360 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.1360 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.1360 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.90 OF 2007 EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.90 OF 2007 EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.90 OF 2007 The Commisioner of Central Excise ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd. ..Respondents Mr.A.S.Rao with N.V.Masurkar & S.D.Bhosale for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH SANTOSH SANTOSH BORA, JJ. BORA, JJ. BORA, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2008 : 25TH APRIL, 2008 : 25TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondents. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 360 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. The prescribed period for filing the Appeal is 180 days. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the impugned order dated 9th September,2005. It appears that the Ministry of Finance had approved and took a decision to file an Appeal on 8th April,2006 i.e. after a lapse of almost six months. Thereafter, the papers were sent to Law Ministry on 10th April,2006. The Law Ministry again took 8 months to send the papers to their Panel Counsel on 20th December,2006, to draft the memo of Appeal. The learned Panel Counsel received the draft Application for Appeal on 26th February,2007 and finally on 30th March,2007 the Appeal came to be filed. 2. On perusal of the Affidavit-in-support of the notice of Motion, it appears that the reasons given for such a gross delay are that of only administrative difficulties etc. We find the reasons given in the affidavit to be totally unsatisfactory. We are not inclined to condone the delay caused in filing the above Appeal. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed. (SANTOSH (SANTOSH (SANTOSH BORA,J.) BORA,J.) BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)