CEA No. 43 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA Nos.43 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision 26.5.2009 M/s Ishar Alloys (P)Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant 9 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CEA Nos. 42 and 43 of 2009 as common order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') is the subject matter of challenge in both the appeals. These appeals have been filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for brevity 'the Act') claiming that substantive questions of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal dated 4.2.2008 (P.8). The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appellant had failed to submit any evidence to prove the cancellation of their registration on 27.8.1997. It was argued before the Tribunal that an application dated 27.8.1997 was sent seeking cancellation of registration and a copy of the application has been placed on record as Annexure P.5 (CEA No. 43 of 2009) but the Tribunal has rejected the same because registration has never been cancelled. Moreover, the appellant did not give any alternative address CEA No. 43 of 2009 2 to the respondent department for future correspondence with them. The Tribunal has accepted the finding that order dated 27.8.1997 was sent to the appellant on 6.8.1998 and acknowledgment was obtained on the copy of the order itself. No appeal was filed and a period of seven years had gone by whereas the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Act provides for filing of an appeal within 60 days and delay could also be condoned if sufficient cause is shown by extending the period upto 30 days. In the present case, appeals before the Commissioner were filed after seven years. There is thus no merit in the appeals. The order dated 4.2.2008 (P.8) passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, pending Civil Misc. applications are also disposed of. A copy of the order be placed on the file of connected appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 26.5.2009 Judge okg